Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Technical Questions Cable "Snake Oil"

In case anyone is interested, there is a cool little "tit for tat" going on at Audioholics.com between Gene DellaSala and Audio Quest related to his "Top ten signs an audio cable vendor is selling you Snake Oil" article.

I love those guys at Audioholics.com - very honest opinions and facts with excellent writing.

where's the linkage?

Found it (for your convenience):

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/audioprinciples/interconnects/Audioquest_DBS.html

A nice read.

Why do you buy audiophile components? Because they're shiny, thick, heavy, or exotic? Because someone tells you they're better? Because scientific measurements show them to be more neutral? Because twenty random people claim they sound better under double blinding testing? To impress your friends?

To me, measurements are valuable only insofar as they can predict my enjoyment of a piece of equipment. If measurements and experience align, then those measurements gain credibility. If measurements contradict experience, than question the measurements. This kind of questioning has led to a better understanding of exactly what charactersitics of tube amps are subjectively pleasing.

Now say I take a Fuji apple and a Gala apple that I want to compare. Food growers swear to me that they're very different fruit: "they taste different and have different textures." So I look at them and they have a very similar appearance. I take one bite from the Gala, then one bite from the Fuji, but I taste no difference and feel no texture variation. I cut them open and observe similar structures and seeds. I put the apple slices under the microscope and note that they have identical-looking cell structures. Finally, I burn both of them and determine that they provide about the same number of calories. With my examination complete, I declare that I can find NO difference between these allegedly different fruit.

What conclusion can I scientifically draw?


-Cooper

You want snake oil? I gottcha snake oil. And plenty more where that came from.

This is an honest to god real thing. someone sent this to us, i dont remember who. According to the label it does everything.

No, Cooper; if measurements contradict "experience", then conduct controlled blind tests to see if the experience is based on more than rumors, hype to influence the gullible, and imagination. When this has been done the tests have failed to show a difference. When the nameplates and pricetags have disappeared, so have the sound differences.

In reply to:

---

Food growers swear to me that they're very different fruit

---

But what if one of the growers publicly claims (swears) that he has made a "scientific breakthough" in growing technology that causes his apple to taste better than any apple that has gone before it but he can't back up his claim with sound science.

It would be fine if the grower simply asserts that in his "opinion"(mind) the apple taste better. This would be a harmless statement (all the growers say it).

But I don't think his fellow growers would be very happy with the government if this one grower were allowed to make the claim that his tastes better because of a scientific breakthrough without having to show proof.

I'm not saying that his apple doesn't taste better, mind you. In fact I think that his apple is the end all to beat all. But in the interest of fair play and ethics, I would still want him to back up his claim of scientific breakthrough.

cblake wrote:

"To me, measurements are valuable only insofar as they can predict my enjoyment of a piece of equipment. If measurements and experience align, then those measurements gain credibility. If measurements contradict experience, than question the measurements. This kind of questioning has led to a better understanding of exactly what charactersitics of tube amps are subjectively pleasing."

Ah, so experience trumps theory? I agree.

In reply to:

---

Ah, so experience trumps theory? I agree.

---

And scientifically reproducable data trumps both.

Actually, data without theory, is noise. (or the basis of a new theory which attempts to make sense of the data.)

And if the data conflicts with the theory or some nebulous, subjective experience, both are invalid.