Why do you visit audio forums?

Basil said:
But opinions are worthless without supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

Haha!

Well, that discounts most of all of human philosophy over the millennia as being 'worthless' .

Also discounts all scientific theory too as being worthless, just before trying to get funding to provide that evidence. Or more importantly NOT find that evidence.

Unsupported opinions are the seeds of innovation!!
 
Richard Dunn said:
It is not faith, it is reality. This shows a distinct misunderstanding of the word, faith is held for an external source, not to an internal sensory perception.
Click to expand...

External to what? External to conciousness? Are you stating as fact that conciousness and the body or conciousness and sense organs are one and the same? Even conciousness and brain function?

That is still up for discussion in both scientific and philosophical worlds.

Sense information and associated organs can rightly be thought of as external to concious understanding of those very senses. Therefore it is right to be able to speak of having 'faith' in those senses in your terms of the word if that's how you understand the world.

In other words, arguing over semantics is surely irrelevant and just bickering..
 
To answer the OP, I visit forums for info on older gear, people's opinions on what gear gives what kind of sound.

Often, I follow people's philosophies on the sound they like and copy a little on the equipment they use or talk about.

Otherwise there's a little of enjoying chipping in on threads like this where there are silly arguments going on (but ultimately feel afterwards that I've just wasted my precious time!) and a little check out what's for sale or selling something of my own.

Always interesting to read DIY threads too to get a better understanding of all the different theories out there and how to save money and be aware of the crazy mark-ups (and out right cons) of many big label manufactures out there.
 
Basil said:
But opinions are worthless without supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

No, they can also be called hypotheses. And the inability to recognise the value of such things is what's crushing the life out of this business.

Establish a hypothesis, build experiments to test that hypothesis and if they demonstrate the hypothesis has validity, form a theory out of that.

However, currently the reaction from the no-nothings is 'establish a hypothesis, insist it is shoe-horned into existing experiments, then reject that hypothesis because it didn't adhere to established experiments and therefore might upset the status quo.' Who cares that the established experiment is based on a discredited food-science test developed to convince people that saccharine and sugar tasted the same? It's sciency.
 
Richard Dunn said:
You see what I don't understand is that everyone can express an opinion without any comment unless they are trade, then we get posts like the TonyL one, which is very helpful in explaining why he moderates and behaves as he does at PFM, it all seems very paranoid to me.

Anyway, I have opinions, and I have expressed them far more in areas I have no business involvement in than ones I do, but if I do comment on cables or amps or speaker wouldn't it be obvious I would say what I believe (only marketing men hype what they don't believe in), also wouldn't it also be obvious that if I believed in something then my products would reflect it, anything else would be looney!
Click to expand...

I would agree with that myself.

Just because you act on your opinions by actually making equipment doesn't mean that your opinions are then suddenly biased towards the promotion of that gear - it can be completely the opposite way around!

Your gear is an extension (and perhaps validation as people buy it and like the sound) as well as a statement of the strength of your opinions in that area.

Ok, perhaps that Ivor bloke and others have previously discredited the integrity of manufacturers in the hifi industry by seemingly creating hifi opinion/philosophy after the fact of their gear but not everyone should be tainted by that.

Surely in fact the more genuine, sincere ones are going to look more like they are just pushing marketing BS simply because the real marketing BSers seek to mimic real enthusiasm and opinion!

Whether one marks someone out as pushing marketing BS to sell their products or whether you feel it is genuine opinion and philosophy behind the product is entirely down to the mindset and past experiences of the observer. It says much about the critic and little about the subject.

If we want to be paranoid, how do we know there aren't people not disclosing their trade links trying to purposely propogate foo opinions of rival companies? Should they get banned on forums too?

Could QED be sponsoring threads bashing high-end cables? Certainly would work very well as people are turned towards cheap and cheerful cables instead.
 
Richard Dunn said:
So why are you doing it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

:zzzz: No need to be quick to argue with my posts.. being quick to argue is quite boring (that goes for all of you doing it!).

I was making the point that it can be seen both ways, you two have different ideas of the word "faith". I was playing devils advocate to your statement. You can take it as deep as you like (oo-er!) and still not get an answer.

You also appear, like probably 50% of the world, to be someone who's feelings and senses are indisputably true and not even a question of faith. In many ways that is correct.

However, the other 50% of the world are more internally analytical and separate these feelings from their thought processes.

There are advantages to both ways of your brain being wired.

Those who take their feelings and senses to be absolute truth are more likely to act on their thoughts, become political leaders, manufacture hifi gear off the back of the audio and electronics opinions etc etc

Those who are more analytical can be more geared towards human incite, science, philosophy, probably better at marketing strategies for hifi etc etc.

Pointless to argue over that kind of thing (even thought that would wipe out much of the arguments you seem to get into Richard) as it's fairly hard wired into your brain. Some people just won't be able to relate to it in any way.
 
Richard Dunn said:
So why are you doing it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually, re-reading my post, you can easily see that I wasn't.

You should have tried reading it and taking it in rather than just continuing to argue with anything that quotes you followed by a sentence with a question mark..

All these rolleyes from you richard, make me think you're not taking in enough oxygen?! Are you passing out?
 
nat8808 said:
Actually, re-reading my post, you can easily see that I wasn't.

You should have tried reading it and taking it in rather than just continuing to argue with anything that quotes you followed by a sentence with a question mark..

All these rolleyes from you richard, make me think you're not taking in enough oxygen?! Are you passing out?
Click to expand...


So why are you arguing now then? :rolleyes:
 
Fnuckle said:
No, they can also be called hypotheses. And the inability to recognise the value of such things is what's crushing the life out of this business.

Establish a hypothesis, build experiments to test that hypothesis and if they demonstrate the hypothesis has validity, form a theory out of that.

However, currently the reaction from the no-nothings is 'establish a hypothesis, insist it is shoe-horned into existing experiments, then reject that hypothesis because it didn't adhere to established experiments and therefore might upset the status quo.' Who cares that the established experiment is based on a discredited food-science test developed to convince people that saccharine and sugar tasted the same? It's sciency.
Click to expand...

You can cherry pick situations where blind testing has been abused to garner a specific result, but ask yourself this: Why is it that the vast majority of the UK hi-fi industry recoils in terror at the mere sugestion of a blind test of their equipment?

Something to hide?

And unless you've spent all your life in a cave in the Outer Hebrides, how can you have failed to see that science works?
 
nat8808 said:
Haha!

Well, that discounts most of all of human philosophy over the millennia as being 'worthless' .

Also discounts all scientific theory too as being worthless, just before trying to get funding to provide that evidence. Or more importantly NOT find that evidence.

Unsupported opinions are the seeds of innovation!!
Click to expand...

You are confusing scientific hypotheses with established scientific fact.
Opinions can be the basis of an hypothesis. Hypotheses are very often worth investigation. But hypotheses remain mere conjecture until such time as evidence is provided as to their validity. They then join the body of scientific knowledge.

As for philosophy, by definition, most of it is worthless. All those philosophers with diametrically opposed world views can't all be right.

Chris
 
Fnuckle said:
No, they can also be called hypotheses. And the inability to recognise the value of such things is what's crushing the life out of this business.

Establish a hypothesis, build experiments to test that hypothesis and if they demonstrate the hypothesis has validity, form a theory out of that.

However, currently the reaction from the no-nothings is 'establish a hypothesis, insist it is shoe-horned into existing experiments, then reject that hypothesis because it didn't adhere to established experiments and therefore might upset the status quo.' Who cares that the established experiment is based on a discredited food-science test developed to convince people that saccharine and sugar tasted the same? It's sciency.
Click to expand...

Fnuckle,

What do you know about science? Do you have the faintest idea as to how scientists actually do science?

Just asking, because reading your inchoate rant, it does not look as if you do.

Chris
 
Basil said:
You can cherry pick situations where blind testing has been abused to garner a specific result, but ask yourself this: Why is it that the vast majority of the UK hi-fi industry recoils in terror at the mere sugestion of a blind test of their equipment?

Something to hide?

And unless you've spent all your life in a cave in the Outer Hebrides, how can you have failed to see that science works?
Click to expand...

Well this member of the trade would be supporting blind tests 25 years ago, but *from experience* I have now rejected them.

Plus I have nothing to hide and I am not in the slightest bit scared of them. I don't submit items for review now but when I did they were in Hi-Fi Choice blind group tests many times, and I was in the listening panels many times.

I was talking to Paul Messenger on the phone yesterday and he said seeing as I was active again he asked me if I wanted me come back on his speaker blind listening panel for Choice.
 
Basil said:
You can cherry pick situations where blind testing has been abused to garner a specific result, but ask yourself this: Why is it that the vast majority of the UK hi-fi industry recoils in terror at the mere sugestion of a blind test of their equipment?

Something to hide?

And unless you've spent all your life in a cave in the Outer Hebrides, how can you have failed to see that science works?
Click to expand...

Except they don't. Two UK magazines and the majority of UK companies use blind tests in their procedure.

The thing is, most of them know how pointless an ad hoc blind test is.
 
Cav said:
fair enough but if you wilfully choose to embrace ignorance that, too, is your business.
Click to expand...
I embrace reality, the reality that my ears show me, the reality that my customer show me, the reality that my emotions show me, the reality that my intellect shows me, the only realities that is relevant to a human being, not a computer.

For heaven sake music is an art form, listening to you lot makes it seem like an digital file.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top