Acceptable Responses when Impossible Claims Are Made??

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Scientists do NOT have open minds like a screen door in a submarine

No, but neither should they be welded shut either like yours is in this area ,where your qualifications are in a completely different discipline to Electronics.

[89reksal]

I'm guessing real scientists also don't have 12k+ posts on an audiophile forum. But I've been wrong before.

[sandyk]

2 minutes ago, lasker98 said:

I'm guessing real scientists also don't have 12k+ posts on an audiophile forum. But I've been wrong before.

 

Currently 12,677 in a period of just over 3 years. How many of those posts actually contributed to the advancement of Computer Audio ?

[Ralf11]

8 minutes ago, sandyk said:

No, but neither should they be welded shut either like yours is in this area ,where your qualifications are in a completely different discipline to Electronics.

 

what do you mean by qualifications, exactly??

 

and what is your OCD with post count?

[fas42]

10 hours ago, tapatrick said:

 

Keep it to the claim, not the character of the poster. It's pretty difficult to discern why someone posts something because we are complex creatures who cannot be fully appreciated through this medium. Who knows someone might have smoked something strong or in their system a synergy might have fallen into place and are driven to express it to fellow audiophiles. Time will tell.

 

 

A lot of the fighting would disappear if people would take the effort to understand that getting optimum sound is removing obstacles to the potential of the rig being realised. The mindset is normally that I have to keeping adding better and better 'things' to my system - because that's the only way I'm going to hear the "good stuff". And that's wrong. Big time, wrong ...

 

"Synergy" doesn't exist - it's a weasel word expressing the fact that the right things have been done, usually purely through luck, and the system is now producing far less of the usual artifacts that disturb one's hearing - you fluked "creating a piece of software that has far less bugs in it than usual"; and hence it's always satisfying to use - it can be relied upon to nearly always behave itself.

 

Having a barney because someone says a gizmo makes the sound better is completely misunderstanding what's going on - much of the tweaking, and "silly stuff" is playing with, experimenting with, workarounds which compensate for the lack of robustness of the setup; if the drive belt in your car keeps going bad, because the manufacturer didn't get the design of the engine right in the first place, then you will very likely do some crazy things, to try and keep the car on the road.

[tmtomh]

12 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

A lot of the fighting would disappear if people would take the effort to understand that getting optimum sound is removing obstacles to the potential of the rig being realised.

 

Translation: A lot of the fighting would disappear if people would take the effort to see things the way you do. That's true - but it's also true for everyone, so it's not a terribly meaningful statement.

 

Now, where I do agree with you, Frank, is that some of the allegedly intrinsic quality of a component is actually its interaction with other components in the system - for example, the output impedance of one component might be a great or terrible match for the input impedance of the next component in the chain. That type of thing is a source - not the only source, but one source - of some variance and disagreement among people about the sonic quality of some components. (This point of agreement should not be confused with agreement with your claim that tweaking "silly stuff" compensates for deficiencies elsewhere in a system - I don't agree with that. But I hope we can leave that for another thread since we're already a bit OT anyway.)

[fas42]

The OT stated "someone posts a claim that cannot possibly be correct"  - if someone says that they used a "silly tweak" which just happened to be a workaround for some system misbehaviour, where is the "cannot possibly be correct" component in that?

[sandyk]

23 minutes ago, tmtomh said:

for example, the output impedance of one component might be a great or terrible match for the input impedance of the next component in the chain. That type of thing is a source - not the only source, but one source - of some variance and disagreement among people about the sonic quality of some components.

Off Topic, but 100% correct.

[Teresa]

50 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

...OCD...

 

Potential OCD is not always OCD. Friends thought I had OCD because they told me I kept doing things over and over such as double and triple checking my actions. For example "Teresa you already checked three times to make sure you door is locked, come on let's go." I replied "I don't remember doing that." Years later it turns out I have short term memory problems. Just saying it may not be OCD.

[mansr]

6 minutes ago, Teresa said:

Potential OCD is not always OCD. Friends thought I had OCD because they told me I kept doing things over and over such as double and triple checking my actions. For example "Teresa you already checked three times to make sure you door is locked, come on let's go." I replied "I don't remember doing that." Years later it turns out I have short term memory problems. Just saying it may not be OCD.

Are you suggesting there might be a physiological reason for the repetitive posting behaviour exhibited by some individuals?

[fas42]

On 12/13/2019 at 9:38 AM, gmgraves said:

Does that mean that if people talk about an aural or electronic phenomenon that my background and experience tells me cannot be, that I won’t hear a real phenomenon because, subconsciously, my background tells me that it can’t be real? The truth is, I don’t know and I can’t know, and neither can someone on the other side of the question. One hears (or doesn’t hear) what one hears (or doesn’t hear) and that’s the reality of it. Our brains don’t tell us when It obfuscates reality by overlaying it with our personal baggage. 😕

 

And that's a pretty good summary - you hear what you hear, but if you are determined not to accept some significant cause and effect linkage, then you will have every excuse under the sun ready to draw out and lay on the table ... "it was the speakers, the room, too much alcohol, jet lag, etc, etc, etc, ... "'

 

I always enjoy coming across the article, now and again, about how scientists kept on treading on some key data, "because it doesn't make sense!" - and rejecting it, "experimental error, faulty instruments, contaminated apparatus, inexperienced staff, just one of those weird anomalies, etc, etc, etc ..." ... because discarding it was by far the easiest option, at that time. Once the group think factor kicked in, everyone jumped on the bandwagon, and confirmation flooded in, from all sides ... 🙂.

[Teresa]

13 minutes ago, mansr said:

Are you suggesting there might be a physiological reason for the repetitive posting behaviour exhibited by some individuals?

 

Maybe, maybe not. Just suggesting to @Ralf11 that there might be another possible explanation other than ODC.

[The Computer Audiophile]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

quite a few different members wish to see this forum return to more pleasant days where there wasn't an all out war on science or its application to audio, and angry belligerent rage posters did not try to disrupt every thread on here

There has never been a war on science or its application to audio here on AS/CA. I love reading about both sides and wouldn't allow it. 

 

The solutions to the current problem likely won't be pretty for both sides because people can't live and let live (on both sides). After 12 years, more drastic measures will likely be needed unfortunately. 

[The Computer Audiophile]

19 minutes ago, mansr said:

Are you suggesting there might be a physiological reason for the repetitive posting behaviour exhibited by some individuals?

Absolutely 100%. I'm not directing my comment at anyone in particular.

[Teresa]

On 12/12/2019 at 11:28 AM, Ralf11 said:

What responses are allowed when someone posts a claim that cannot possibly be correct?

 

These tools are also handy.

 

[fas42]

An underlying claim that disturbs many people is that hearing is highly adept at picking up anomalies in sound, stuff that doesn't make sense to the listening brain - but, the mind works both sides of the fence; it will "fill in the gaps", compensate completely automatically for gross 'misbehaviour' which it finds reasonable, yes, allow itself to be fooled ... but on the other side will zoom in with laser intense precision to nail something "being wrong", that does not c-o-m-p-u-t-e.

 

The "outrageous claims!" are all about appeasing that other side of the fence, processing laboratory part of the brain ...

[KeenObserver]

I don't know what the answer is.  If the OP is allowed to parse the conversation perhaps they should be allowed to limit who posts in the thread.  There are people who seem to post the same argument everywhere they can, as often as they can.  After the first fourteen thousand times, it gets repetitive!

[gmgraves]

35 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I don't know what the answer is.  If the OP is allowed to parse the conversation perhaps they should be allowed to limit who posts in the thread.  There are people who seem to post the same argument everywhere they can, as often as they can.  After the first fourteen thousand times, it gets repetitive!

You’re not, by some chance, talking about Frank and his “method” are you. If so, I am in complete agreement!

[sandyk]

27 minutes ago, KeenObserver said:

I don't know what the answer is.  If the OP is allowed to parse the conversation perhaps they should be allowed to limit who posts in the thread.  There are people who seem to post the same argument everywhere they can, as often as they can.  After the first fourteen thousand times, it gets repetitive!

 As this remark is clearly aimed at me due to the reference to the first 14,000 times, where a large majority of my posts were not about this subject, I would suggest that so are the typical,  mostly sarcastic, responses from  the usual Anti Subjective members such as yourself.

 You have the ability to use the 2 buttons that Teresa mentioned so that the to and fro does not need to continue, but choose to continue anyway. You also have available the IGNORE facility so that you don't even need to see my replies , or those from others that you disagree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

An admirable and well respected site devoted to computer audio is simply in denial over the Kethel research.
We know better now

Martin C

 

[fas42]

Awww, George ... I was just getting to like you ...

[sandyk]

10 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

You’re not, by some chance, talking about Frank and his “method” are you. If so, I am in complete agreement!

 Clearly not, George, as Frank currently has only made 5,981 posts

 

Regards

Alex

[Ralf11]

24 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 As this remark is clearly aimed at me due to the reference to the first 14,000 times, where a large majority of my posts were not about this subject, I would suggest that so are the typical,  mostly sarcastic, responses from  the usual Anti Subjective members such as yourself.

 You have the ability to use the 2 buttons that Teresa mentioned so that the to and fro does not need to continue, but choose to continue anyway. You also have available the IGNORE facility so that you don't even need to see my replies , or those from others that you disagree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it's all about you eh

[mansr]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

it's all about you eh

Hey, it's rude to make fun of solipsists. Then again, they only have themselves to blame.

[gmgraves]

43 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Clearly not, George, as Frank currently has only made 5,981 posts

 

Regards

Alex

My mistake, Alex! 🤫

[sandyk]

1 minute ago, gmgraves said:

My mistake, Alex! 🤫

 Hi George

 Would you disagree that in the vast majority of technical areas that we both discuss, that for the most part we are on the same page, unlike your discussions with Frank ?

 

Kind Regards

Alex