Why Do People Come To Computer Audiophile To Display Their Contempt For Audiophiles?

[plissken]

On 6/22/2017 at 7:54 AM, Teresa said:

So, if someone gives a reason that doesn't make sense to you because you believe that a computer cannot give stated result, then perhaps it's better to say nothing rather than insulting someone.

 

Remember audiophiles are not scientists and sometimes get the reasons why they like something incorrect. New knowledge doesn’t change how something sounds, it just changes one’s speculation on why it sounds as it does. 

That's not what I said.

 

If someone speculates and the speculation is 100% incorrect. It's still incorrect regardless of how vehemently they speculate.

 

Sorry, when someone is just so fundamentally incorrect and giving out advice you want the person that knows how it actually works to stay mum?

 

I'll generally get into it with someone that won't put on the blinders and do ears only, bias controlled, evaluation. Even more so if they are a manufacturer.

 

Of course new knowledge doesn't change the way's things sound. Including changes that are just 100% self delusion.

 

 

[4est]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

At risk of straying off-topic, in the case of scientists, that number is comparatively few (about 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences).  In the (admittedly extreme) case of Francis Collins, it does make me worry about many of his other beliefs.

 

With only 2500 elected members, I am not sure that is a good example. I am not a believer either btw.

[wgscott]

8 minutes ago, 4est said:

 

With only 2500 elected members, I am not sure that is a good example. I am not a believer either btw.

 

Well, there is a Lake Wobegon effect.

[Albrecht]

6 minutes ago, plissken said:

Sorry, when someone is just so fundamentally incorrect and giving out advice you want the person that knows how it actually works to stay mum?

 

I'll generally get into it with someone that won't put on the blinders and do ears only, bias controlled, evaluation. Even more so if they are a manufacturer.

 

Of course new knowledge doesn't change the way's things sound. Including changes that are just 100% self delusion.

 

 

I guess that it all comes down to how you subjectively define "works." When the "advice" is "this sounds great to me," - how is that wrong? When you compare stereo "a" to "b" and it's actually "working," - do you need to know how either "works" to know if you prefer one or the other?

But, - I guess those questions above are not "good science" to you, and will be deserving of the forthcoming derision towards me as a person.

[4est]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Well, there is a Lake Wobegon effect.

With whom? I seem to see it from both sides along with the "othering" displayed around here.

[4est]

14 minutes ago, plissken said:

That's not what I said.

 

If someone speculates and the speculation is 100% incorrect. It's still incorrect regardless of how vehemently they speculate.

 

Sorry, when someone is just so fundamentally incorrect and giving out advice you want the person that knows how it actually works to stay mum?

 

I'll generally get into it with someone that won't put on the blinders and do ears only, bias controlled, evaluation. Even more so if they are a manufacturer.

 

Of course new knowledge doesn't change the way's things sound. Including changes that are just 100% self delusion.

 

 

 

Sadly, many who think they know how it all works get it wrong as well. I include myself and you in there. Your last sentence is a prime example of this...

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, 4est said:

With whom? I seem to see it from both sides along with the "othering" displayed around here.

 

Sorry, I meant pretty much everyone in the National Academy is above average.

[4est]

Just now, wgscott said:

 

Sorry, I meant pretty much everyone in the National Academy is above average.

And likely so are the top tier of the religious elite.

[wgscott]

3 minutes ago, 4est said:

And likely so are the top tier of the religious elite.

 

There is always the question of whether they actually believe, or are just cynical power-hungry opportunists.

[pkane2001]

39 minutes ago, Jud said:

 

Yes, but what kind of blind test?  Not something that involves switching in 2-4 seconds, surely?  I know these sorts of “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” blind tests aren’t subject to some of the same problems as sighted ones.  But that seems to me akin to saying “I may not be taking any drugs to help my arthritis, but at least I’m not wearing one of those stupid bracelets!”

 

I’m interested in what attracted you to the idea of the SU-1.

 

Usually not 2-4 second, but less than a minute to switch with the help of an assistant.

 

SU-1 was primarily to enable DSD512 and native DSD to my DAC, which only supports DSD256/DoP.

[jabbr]

1 minute ago, wgscott said:

 

There is always the question of whether they actually believe, or are just cynical power-hungry opportunists.

How else would you get on the National Academy?  

[mansr]

2 minutes ago, wgscott said:

There is always the question of whether they actually believe, or are just cynical power-hungry opportunists.

http://clergyproject.org/

[4est]

1 minute ago, wgscott said:

 

There is always the question of whether they actually believe, or are just cynical power-hungry opportunists.

 

Damn that is so true!

[AJ Soundfield]

1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

people get all sorts of sensory experiences with jewelry -- I accept that ?

Me too. I like all kinds of fancy audio jewelry.

I just don't make any silly claims as to why.

[christopher3393]

58 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

There is always the question of whether they actually believe, or are just cynical power-hungry opportunists.

 

Perhaps you mean clergy? I know very few cynical power-hungry opportunists working in academic theology. And I have met and worked with many theologians. And I'm trying to be objective here. 

 

Sorry for the OT.

[lucretius]

1 hour ago, wgscott said:

 

At risk of straying off-topic, in the case of scientists, that number is comparatively few (about 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences).  In the (admittedly extreme) case of Francis Collins, it does make me worry about many of his other beliefs.

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

 

Collins may be an esteemed scientist but seems to be a really bad philosopher.

[christopher3393]

25 minutes ago, lucretius said:

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

 

Collins may be an esteemed scientist but seems to be a really bad philosopher.

 

Would anyone take offense if I express the opinion that reading Collins is a waste of time?

[mansr]

12 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Would anyone take offense if I express the opinion that Collins is a waste of time?

Perhaps also a waste of space.

[Jud]

7 minutes ago, mansr said:

Perhaps also a waste of space.

 

But those of us interested in relativity already knew that.

[jabbr]

34 minutes ago, lucretius said:

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

 

Maybe God, at the time of creation, had full knowledge that imperfections in the USB protocol would create future debates about digital cables?

[Jud]

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

 

Usually not 2-4 second, but less than a minute to switch with the help of an assistant.

 

The phrase “close but no cigar” comes to mind.  

 

1 hour ago, pkane2001 said:

SU-1 was primarily to enable DSD512 and native DSD to my DAC, which only supports DSD256/DoP.

 

Would you think the difference in noise levels (between DSD256 and DSD512) to be audible, or just curious and it wasn’t too expensive?

 

(Not meaning to press you or ask for justification - I do have an “ulterior motive,” and it’s to show we are not all so very different.)

[Jud]

5 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Maybe God, at the time of creation, had full knowledge that imperfections in the USB protocol would create future debates about digital cables?

 

You, sir, are today’s winner of the Internets.

[Middy]

we just need a Sine...

Or a burning Bush radio..

[Jud]

2 hours ago, plissken said:

That's not what I said.

 

If someone speculates and the speculation is 100% incorrect. It's still incorrect regardless of how vehemently they speculate.

 

Sorry, when someone is just so fundamentally incorrect and giving out advice you want the person that knows how it actually works to stay mum?

 

I'll generally get into it with someone that won't put on the blinders and do ears only, bias controlled, evaluation. Even more so if they are a manufacturer.

 

Of course new knowledge doesn't change the way's things sound. Including changes that are just 100% self delusion.

 

 

 

pliss, I remember seeing you post at least one response when a question that had to do with law was being discussed.  It was obvious to me you were in unfamiliar territory, yet you had the same assertiveness you bring to your other posts.  So how am I to evaluate your assertive posts when it is not a subject that is so familiar to me and I have no way to tell if you really know what you’re talking about or not?

[christopher3393]

27 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

Maybe God, at the time of creation, had full knowledge that imperfections in the USB protocol would create future debates about digital cables?

 

Well, I think this is a given. As eternal, as not a being but being itself, God has full awareness of the entire spatio-temporal continuum in a kind of enfolded form, like origami, compressed without losing any significant detail. There should be a name for this...