Article: Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

[kennyb123]

10 minutes ago, mansr said:

Have you stopped beating your wife?

 

Hmmm 😀

 

 

[plissken]

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

 

Not necessarily.  Context needs to be considered.

 

Note the claim that @plissken made:  "When products are championed in the market place that are proven empirically to have no possible impact on audio."  

 

This is an exaggerated and false claim based on a misunderstanding of the proper application of null results.  

 

Oh enlighten me...

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

 

Now is what he did unethical?   It depends on his intentions so we must consider the context.  Did he just misspeak or maybe was not aware of the proper application of statistical results

How many times do you have to put your hand in the fire for the fact that you got burned to become statistically significant?

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

 Smearing them with malicious intent - that's what unethical looks like.

 

I'm not smearing anyone. The instrumentation speaks for itself. If some manufacturer thinks I libeled them then there is a venue for resolving this.

[plissken]

em·pir·i·cal

/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

adjective: empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

The context there points to ethical intentions as they leave it to the prospective buyer to make the final call on the veracity of their claims.  Some, like Uptone, will fully refund purchases within 30 days if a buyer is not fully pleased with the product.  That's what ethical looks like.

 

...to a radical subjectivism and unfortunately most of Audiophiledom.  "Pleasure" and satisfaction does not equal the ethical.  A more normative perspective on ethics is that it is much more closely related to truth.

[wgscott]

Quote

Why did audio stop being about audio?

 

 

[kennyb123]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

 

Oh enlighten me...

 

 

You are un-enlighten-able on this topic.  Your ethics don't require that your own claims be based on sound science.  Nothing I can say will change your mind.  You are too personally invested in your desired outcome that you won't allow fairness to get in the way.

 

[Ralf11]

it ain't him; it's you

[kennyb123]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

 

...to a radical subjectivism and unfortunately most of Audiophiledom.  "Pleasure" and satisfaction does not equal the ethical.  A more normative perspective on ethics is that it is much more closely related to truth.

 

I must admit you deflect with a creativity that is really something to behold.  It's almost like you are living buzzword generator.  You take a few words from post you are quoting, mix them up, and then post a response to something no one said.  Are you using software to assist with this?  Or does your brain just do this naturally? 

[Ralf11]

it ain't him either; it's you

[thyname]

3 minutes ago, kennyb123 said:

I must admit you deflect with a creativity that is really something to behold.

LOL! Give it up. You cannot beat these guys up. They are professional forum writers. They have mastered this trade

[kennyb123]

37 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

it ain't him; it's you

 

Wow, surprise, you respond with "deflect and attack". 

 

Why not challenge my assertion?  In other words, why not provide the scientific basis for why it is acceptable for plissken to apply the results the way he did?  Is it because you can't and you know it? 

 

Are you really an objectivist or are you just posing as one?

 

[Ralf11]

LOL! Give it up. You cannot beat these guys up. They are professional engineers and scientists.

[kennyb123]

6 minutes ago, thyname said:

LOL! Give it up. You cannot beat these guys up. They are professional forum writers. They have mastered this trade

 

I know I can't beat them.  They're just helping me confirm a hypothesis.  

[Ralf11]

The scientific method is worth of study before you start playing with hypotheses

[kennyb123]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

They are professional engineers and scientists.

 

I believe you've just employed the "credentials fallacy" - though maybe not exactly.  If a person behaves like a child on a forum, their credentials are irrelevant.  

[kennyb123]

4 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

The scientific method is worth of study before you start playing with hypotheses

 

As an FYI, this (and #5 in particular) was not meant to be a "how to" guide.  

[Ralf11]

3 minutes ago, thyname said:

‘You have way too many posts here for a 14 years old guy writing from your parents’ basement 😁

 

 

what's with the personal attacks, muffy??

[Middy]

Are fuse's still an issue or moved from the Harry potter side/ box of magic beans of audio? 

The electronics EEC designers in work looked at me like i'd grown a new head and quite rightly.

I tried one before for fun and noticed a change 2 years on... second hand one just in.. fantastic but its just a fuse. My only concern always is that it doesn't sound like a fireman kicking the door in. 

These guys scream of pseudoscience marketing crap for scientologist rejects...

Not done a Amir special and A B' using 25 blind electronics engineers but enough that I can't reconcile that this has done the most to enhance my listening pleasure. Whats more the Ebay seller described to a Tee the exact changes before it arrived...

But kept my mouth shut the first time as bias and just in my head like the voice that said spend £100 on a bloody fuse... more money means better and be belittled..

 

But i am trapped with sub/obj dogma as the IFI gear measures well and is published but more than less had little effect for a modest price. 

I am a subjectivist by default because its all i have but the paradox of having 'faith' in a highly educated engineer in thier field telling me otherwise because i am not and i should.

So the bullshit filter failed me and cost me. Trust from experience won... 

But a dilemma many it seems are trapped between... well at least me... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 hours ago, plissken said:

em·pir·i·cal

/əmˈpirik(ə)l/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

adjective: empirical

1. based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Ah, like Empirical Audio 😁

[crenca]

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

You are too personally invested in your desired outcome that you won't allow fairness to get in the way...

 

 

Not sure why you went personal.  You put forward an ethic, one that claims that radical subjectivism is "what ethics look like".  Yet surely you know that an objective thinker is never going to agree to such a radically subjective ethics...

 

Edit:  I understand that what is "fair" (ethical) is subjectively determined, but can you allow that to an objective view this is hopelessly relative?

[crenca]

1 hour ago, crenca said:

I understand that what is "fair" (ethical) is subjectively determined, but can you allow that to an objective view this is hopelessly relative?

 

I meant to say:

 

I understand that what is "fair" (ethical) for you is subjectively determined, but can you allow that to an objective view this is hopelessly relative?

 

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, Middy said:

bullshit

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

let me get this straight - the F word is not allowed, but this is?

[kennyb123]

34 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

I meant to say:

 

I understand that what is "fair" (ethical) for you is subjectively determined, but can you allow that to an objective view this is hopelessly relative?

 

I can think of no greater waste of time than to discuss what is and isn’t ethical with someone who consistently misrepresents what others have said.  

[crenca]

1 hour ago, kennyb123 said:

I can think of no greater waste of time than to discuss what is and isn’t ethical with someone who consistently misrepresents what others have said.  

 

Look who is dodging now.  Sucks don't it, when folks don't agree to the terms of how to get where you want to go.

[kennyb123]

2 hours ago, crenca said:

 

Look who is dodging now.  Sucks don't it, when folks don't agree to the terms of how to get where you want to go.

 

You just reminded me of a scene in a movie I saw again the other night, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo".  Near the end the villain (played by Stellan Skarsgård) says to the investigator, (played by Daniel Craig) something like "you people never trust your gut - you sensed danger and yet you followed me into my home anyway - so strong is your desire to not offend that you followed me in here even though your gut was telling you not to".  Great movie, by the way.

 

And how's this relevant?  There was a time when I would enter into discussions even when my gut warned that I was being bated into a trap.  So strong was my desire to treat others as I'd want to be treated myself, I would just ignore what my gut was telling me and go ahead and try to have a substantive discuss with that other person.  And, as expected those discussions never turned out to be substantive - and I often found myself losing my cool.  (I'm guessing those of you on the subjective side of this debate know exactly what I mean.)

 

I see now that equipping myself to better recognize when manipulation techniques are being employed is starting to help me avoid being bated into traps.  Consistently misrepresentnig what others say is often an attempt to deflect and provoking a negative reaction.  I believe it might even be aimed at "winning" the debate by getting others to walk away in anger.  My gut has been telling me to avoid responding to a certain individual here who keeps misrepresenting what I've written, and for once I'm thankful that I've been able to listen to my gut. Unlike Daniel Craig's character, I have no intention of following him into his house.