[bigshot]

I was first on the internet in 1993 or so. Usenet days. It was just as contentious back then, but arguments were allowed to come to a resolution naturally. No one was insulated from being challenged.

 

[71 dB]

Science is the process for determining the truth.

Exactly, but that doesn't mean scientists always follow that process to the letter.

 

[BobG55]

I was first on the internet in 1993 or so. Usenet days. It was just as contentious back then, but arguments were allowed to come to a resolution naturally. No one was insulated from being challenged.

A big part of that stems from the contemporary schooling system/ curriculum and universities. Especially the latter which for the most part have become echo chambers of the indoctrinated narrative. Students are no longer permitted to challenge, debate or emit a difference of opinion or, they are seriously discouraged from doing so. So, many of those who go along with this get offended if someone challenges or debates their narrative. Just my 2 cents.

 

[bigshot]

Yes, but there is no consensus on what is the truth. Even science does questionable claims sometimes (in hopes of funding etc.). What is definitely the truth might be "probably the truth" to me and scientific lies to another person. People don't agree about who can be trusted. Scientists? Snake oil sellers? Loudest mouths on the internet forums? Pete the neighbour? You can say something has been proven true with rigorous tests, and you are probably 100 % correct, but someone else can totally ignore that by saying it is all lies. How do you prove they aren't?

This is what I was replying to. I repeat my comment, "Science is the method used to determine the truth."

If someone can't figure out whether scientific tests or snake oil sellers are the best source to determine the truth, they are beyond clueless. Yes, there are an awful lot of stupid people in the world. And some people are so deeply invested in their lies that they refuse to acknowledge the truth. But that doesn't change the truth. The truth simply is what it is.

All opinions are not equal. Some are based in facts and some are complete hogwash. Science and logic are the tools people who aren't complete morons use to discern the truth and reject hogwash.

 

[bigshot]

A big part of that stems from the contemporary schooling system/ curriculum and universities. Especially the latter which for the most part have become echo chambers of the indoctrinated narrative. Students are no longer permitted to challenge, debate or emit a difference of opinion or, they are seriously discouraged from doing so. So, many of those who go along with this get offended if someone challenges or debates their narrative. Just my 2 cents.

I think a lot of it comes from the commercialization of the internet too. Back in its infancy, academics ran usenet. I had some interactions with "netgods" as they were called at the time. They were principled people who believed in the power of debate and valued it. They saw the internet as the great hope for unfettered free speech. Stupid people could stupid online, and they were confident that the conversation would reveal the stupidity and dispel it. Commercial interests, particularly those with a vested interest in stupid, avoid debate at all costs. They want to control the narrative so you only hear their side.

But what you say is ultimately true... The people engaging in the discussion are afraid to challenge and be challenged. If they adhered to fair debate techniques, they could overcome the commercial bottleneck, but as long as they are afraid to challenge it, everyone remains sheep. Schools used to create free thinkers. Now they create sheep.

I do think that there is a degeneration in the mental abilities of people. The intelligence level and mental balance of the average person today seems to be lower than in the past. For the past couple of decades, I've been interested in shows that feature wide swaths of humanity... Cops, Blind Date, etc. Today YouTube is packed with peeks into the lives of average people. I follow live court cams of typical judicial proceedings with average people. The other day I ran across this one. Is this what we've become?



On the other hand, I think the internet tends to attract people who are on the bottom end of the scale. With a few exceptions, people who have their eye on the ball seem to be off doing other things than participating in social media or making videos for YouTube. It may be just that the internet is a funhouse mirror reflecting the worst in society. At least I hope that's the case.

 

[bfreedma]

I think a lot of it comes from the commercialization of the internet too. Back in its infancy, academics ran usenet. I had some interactions with "netgods" as they were called at the time. They were principled people who believed in the power of debate and valued it. They saw the internet as the great hope for unfettered free speech. Stupid people could stupid online, and they were confident that the conversation would reveal the stupidity and dispel it. Commercial interests, particularly those with a vested interest in stupid, avoid debate at all costs. They want to control the narrative so you only hear their side.

But what you say is ultimately true... The people engaging in the discussion are afraid to challenge and be challenged. If they adhered to fair debate techniques, they could overcome the commercial bottleneck, but as long as they are afraid to challenge it, everyone remains sheep. Schools used to create free thinkers. Now they create sheep.

I do think that there is a degeneration in the mental abilities of people. The intelligence level and mental balance of the average person today seems to be lower than in the past. For the past couple of decades, I've been interested in shows that feature wide swaths of humanity... Cops, Blind Date, etc. Today YouTube is packed with peeks into the lives of average people. I follow live court cams of typical judicial proceedings with average people. The other day I ran across this one. Is this what we've become?



On the other hand, I think the internet tends to attract people who are on the bottom end of the scale. With a few exceptions, people who have their eye on the ball seem to be off doing other things than participating in social media or making videos for YouTube. It may be just that the internet is a funhouse mirror reflecting the worst in society. At least I hope that's the case.

IMO, the biggest change in the internet user base from the 70s to date is due the low bar for connecting, both cost and ease of access.

My early experiences on what became the internet in the late 70s was on a Decwriter III. To connect, you needed the LS-120, a traditional phone with handset (and a phone line), an acoustic coupler, and a serial cable that most hand built from pinout guides. All of that to connect at 300 baud and no monitor, just green bar paper. That was definitely a barrier that tended to filter out the less intelligent.

With the advent of the WWW, graphics capable browsers and high speed access, it doesn’t take much intellectual horsepower to connect and find like minded “geniuses” who know more than actual experts.


TLDR: the IQ bell curve hasn’t changed, but we’ve made it easier for those on the wrong side of the curve to demonstrate their ignorance.

 

[bigshot]

Yeah, you're probably right. You and I go back about as far. The first time I used a computer was at UCLA in 1970. My brother worked for UCLA on the computer there, which was connected by ARPA-net to similar computers at NASA and the FBI. I was in 5th grade and played Adventure and wrote simple programs on punch cards. I had no idea where it would be in a couple of decades. My brother kept me in the loop of what was going on with computers. He wrote code for FTP, created the documentation for the DOS on the Apple II, wrote the first top down RPG (which I also worked on), and handed me down a LISA he had put a Mac emulator on so I could access the internet. Nothing was the same again after that!

 

[gregorio]

Maybe "we" don't need blind listening tests, but for those who insist that Ethernet cables can carry noise (in addition to carrying a digital signal) from one component to another that is not already being filtered out by the receiving component, they are not going to accept "measurements" and they insist on subjective listening tests.

Again, digital audio is itself a measurement (amplitude over time), so if “they are not going to accept measurements” then they cannot accept digital audio.

My point is that a blind listening test is a subjective listening test (as they demand), and that would at least force them to prove whether or not they can actually hear any difference (as they claim they can).

But it doesn’t, we’ve been running DBTs on audiophiles for 40+ years, and the only result is 40+ years worth of experience in creating BS arguments for why blind testing is broken/doesn’t work.

Using the basic facts and simple logic doesn’t work against those incapable of applying logic and critical thinking. The audiophile manufacturers, marketers and reviewers have fought tooth and nail to protect their livelihoods, they’ve: Changed the historical facts, relied on pseudoscience and fallacies, effectively argued black is white or whatever tactic audiophiles are willing to swallow, ever since science/engineering first started debunking their BS claims. Many of the audiophile arguments we see are just parroting the same old BS responses that reviewers and marketers came up with 20-40 years ago to save their jobs.

Fair enough. Good that those who hold pretty much the same views have a place of their own. Good for everyone

And here’s an excellent example of the last paragraph above! Falsely claiming/implying that the actual facts and history is just a “view” is a BS audiophile tactic that’s at least 30 years old. It’s a fallacious attempt to imply equivalency, IE. Between two opposing but equally valid views. But the reality is NOT “two equally valid views”, it’s the actual facts on one side and marketing BS on the other!

A “place of our own” is therefore this subforum and pretty much the rest of the entire world, with the exception of the other subforums here on Head-fi and any other sites reliant on audiophile marketing. And, how is this a good thing for everyone? Sure, it’s a good thing for the audiophile marketers and their shills but how’s it a good thing for those being scammed or for the rest of us?

Not trying to be funny but any proof of these changes, increased marketing and false claims?

The evidence is obvious if you read the rest of this site or other audiophile sites. Not only that, but the reason why is also obvious.

Objectivists and subjectivists to use those terms simply don't mingle too well …

Another ancient audiophile tactic, simply make up false “facts” to support the narrative. Objectivists and subjectivists have been mingling well for generations, ever since scientists and engineers started working with musicians. Sure, there are sometimes disagreements but they’re usually resolved completely amicably.

and if you cannot have the utopia of free speech, which equals uncontrollable chaos in this case, isn't it best that these two groups are separated? For the sake of peace.

So, BS marketing and scamming consumers is perfectly acceptable “for the sake of peace” between the rationalists and the scammers?

A big part of that stems from the contemporary schooling system/ curriculum and universities. Especially the latter which for the most part have become echo chambers of the indoctrinated narrative.

Isn’t that the whole point of education? Don’t we want to “indoctrinate” our children to believe that 1+1=2, that the Earth is spherical rather than flat, that vaccines work, etc.? Don’t we want university students studying Ethernet/networking protocols to be “indoctrinated” into how Ethernet actually works rather than in the nonsense audiophile beliefs of how it works?

When it comes to electrical engineering, electronics, digital technology, etc., and the science that underpins it, what “indoctrinated narrative” are you talking about? The “narrative” is ENTIRELY based on “critical” experiments, demonstrated proofs and reliable, repeatable evidence.

Students are no longer permitted to challenge, debate or emit a difference of opinion or, they are seriously discouraged from doing so.

Maybe in North Korean universities but not in any of the countless universities I know of. In fact quite the opposite in many/most universities. Those who teach at universities are not called teachers, they’re called lecturers or professors because their role is different to school teachers. In compulsory education it is the responsibility of school teachers to teach their students but in higher education this responsibility shifts to the students. Lecturers/Professors just provide the information resources so the students can teach themselves and discussion is so vital to this process that it’s mandated! Lecture plans virtually always include scheduled time for questions/discussion (typically near the end) and a very large proportion of essay titles start with or include the word “Discuss”.

Maybe the above varies somewhat in different countries but not massively IME.

G

 

[Steve999]

I joined in July 2002 so the rest of you are two-bit punks.

 

[bfreedma]

I joined in July 2002 so the rest of you are two-bit punks.

How disrespectful. I joined in 2012. That should be worth at least the rank of 3 bit punk…

 

[VNandor]

How disrespectful. I joined in 2012. That should be worth at least the rank of 3 bit punk…

Don't be greedy, that's almost twice as much.

 

[bigshot]

I joined in 2004 so I’m like SACD… one bit!

 

[Ghoostknight]

i made similar expierences for ethernet as other audiphiles, tho i believe that its not the data itself or the internet wouldnt work as it does

i havent spent "big bucks" on switches/ethernet cables but i expierenced how the inbuilt wlan of the raspberry pi makes things worse, disabling the bt/wlan module improves sound quality and i was using a cheap d-link wlan stick for a while, i switched to a fritz.box wlan stick recently and it improved sound quality further
(also interesting to note is that i hear improvements if i underclock the raspberry pi)
the reason i use wlan is, that i think this kind of galvanic isolation is hard to achive with ethernet cables (atleast at a comparable price point) tho maybe i change my mind once i tried a good ethernet setup since the wlan stick itself can introduce noise, and maybe the fact it runs on the ghz range makes things dramatical worse

since i dont dismiss all science etc (i just think some of it is wrong, like it hasnt be discovered in "blind tests" yet, so science people dont care about it) the most logical thing (for me) is actual noise which somehow influences other stuff, even if it cant be measured on the dac output
i come from a standpoint where i hear differences first and try to find a logical explanation to kinda try to make it a "whole picture" to go from there

but the best source i came across so far which kinda line up with my current "audiophile" believes (which might be interesting to some) is the website&youtube channel "Alpha Audio"
they "kinda" blind tested (tho you guys will critique this) ethernet switches and also measured them and there was kinda big differences, for example power supply noise distributed to the ethernet ports, port to port noise isolation etc (which was surprising for me since the common explanation includes that ethernet ports are completely isolated)

https://alpha-audio.net/review/a-very-deep-dive-into-network-switches-listening-and-measuring/2/
( HOW AND WHY we test network switches... )
( Live BLIND test switches - do switches matter for audio quality? )

the blind tests on youtube where you can listen yourself is a really interesting approach but micing (tho they do a good job i think compared to other youtube videos like this) and specially youtube makes it very hard to hear differences, tho i heared some differences myself but they seem very minor in comparision if you test this yourself

Alpha Audio is actually the only really good channel i found which try to combine objective and subjective matters (which is the approach we need imo)
kinda wondering why i never found measurements like this but glad they did it, and i think they are genuine and dont try to push audiophile stuff just because the sake of it
the tests also show that they dont think the most expensive solution is the best... and also measurements show this

 

[bigshot]

Here we go again!

 

[Ghoostknight]

Here we go again!

lol, i thought some measurements are interesting for you objectivists