I posted this in another thread, but I thought it might be useful to open source some more ideas in a separate thread.
The mark of genius is often to be misunderstood, but to be misunderstood is not usually the mark of genius - Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Ad Vinum
Audio is like wine, which inevitably involves incorrect assertions about the chemical make-up of wine (
e.g. they allege that identical wines taste different) and blind testing (usually they are wrong about what sommeliers can and can’t do). For instance, the different tastes of different varietals, vintages, and terroir all have
measurable chemical signatures (Giving rise to “frankenwines” blended to be similar to great vintages). They tend to ignore that the Sommelier and Master Sommelier exams involve an important label-blind test (but even that requires viscosity and color examination to get correct).
Ad Automobilis
Audio is like cars. Ok, now what?
Ad Horologium in Carpi
Audio is like wristwatches. True, but nobody is making claims about the quality of time-telling in a fancy chronomoter. Corollary: all audio debates devolve to wristwatch debates.
Ad Quantum
Your measurements are Newtonian and Audio involves significant quantum effects that are audible to us - we just can’t prove it
Ad Difficile Nito
Blind testing involves too much pressure/rapid changes and therefore is invalid. Typically ignores many blind tests where the timing, length, and rapidity are under the subject’s control. Those asserting this also tend to discount the audiological evidence that a) rapid switching is by far the best way for humans to distinguish small differences and b) that audio memory is incredibly short-lived.
Ad Mysterium
A superset of
Ad Quantum and Ad Materiae, in which previous examples of ‘settled science’ being unseated are trotted out as dispositive that this is going on in Audio, despite the lack of unexplained phenomena to explain in unsighted testing. Often supported with the Shakespeare quote from Hamlet “There is more on heav’n and earth..”, ignoring that the speaker is
defending the existence of ghosts. He is also expounding on the limitless nature of human imagination, which is actually quite apt to high end Audio, as that’s where most high end differences appear to arise. Typically used to confuse the fact that measurements don’t explain everything we
hear with the truth that measurements can describe everything in the sound wave (above and beyond what is
audible).
Ad Aures Aureas
The Golden Ear fallacy, usually trotted out by people with severe age-related hearing loss. Tales of extraordinary audio discernment with few witnesses accompanied by a violent allergy to any kind of blind-testing.
Ad Difficile Nito is a common co-morbidity when cornered.
Omnia Critica
Every little thing makes a difference, down to the cushion material used on the feet of your DAC. No threshold of difference is too small. Ignores the science of human hearing.
Contra Aequationem Volumen
Often committed en passant, without acknowledging as much, this is the practice of deprecating level-matching as the primary cause of actual perceived differences. Many audiophiles eschew any kind of level-matching in evaluating equipment, which has, perhaps, cost people more money than any other nonsense in the hobby. Also known as
Contra-Fletcher-Munson.
Ad Materiae
Another subset of
Ad Mysterium The materials used in electronics have their own audible quality, which transcends measurement. Amusingly, these qualities correspond directly to the tactile or visual characteristics of the material in question. Plastic waveguides sound synthetic, silver cables sound liquid, beryllium sounds hard, wood sounds warm,
etc.
Russell’s Teapot
”You can’t prove it doesn’t exist”. A favorite of everyone with unsupported theories and claims, despite the well-known practical difficulties of proving a negative.
Failure to disprove something is not evidence that it exists.
Others?