What I find striking is that the "scientists" and some EEs here are incomparably more belligerent than the "subjectivists" and will settle for no less total redemption of their misguided souls, even if it kills them. Much a la Toquemada. So we have people of actually excellent professional standing being called hacks here, right or wrong. It would be good to remember that we all make mistakes at least from time to time.
The accused, the "subjectivists", seem to be a bit more tolerant. I suppose they have to, because if they acept personal taste, they by default accept the fact that others who hear diffferently will neccessarily think and hear differently as well.
The late Uames Bongiorno, who by his late age had forgotten more than I'll ever know, was great to me not only for the work he has left behind for all to hear, but even more so because when asked a questionm, his answer was always prompt, always wholesome (nothing important left out) and always true, as best as I could make out. It was much the same the two times I asked Scott directly what he thought (the last time about AD829, remember?), all the time with Nigel, all the time with Christophe, all the time with Demian Martin (1audio), and John Curl. They did have something to say and were not stingy in answering. All this is almost the exact opposite of known "objectivists", who sometimes didn't even answer a query, or slammed back their usual theses and that was that, take it or leave it.
No room for any trace of flexibility.
The accused, the "subjectivists", seem to be a bit more tolerant. I suppose they have to, because if they acept personal taste, they by default accept the fact that others who hear diffferently will neccessarily think and hear differently as well.
The late Uames Bongiorno, who by his late age had forgotten more than I'll ever know, was great to me not only for the work he has left behind for all to hear, but even more so because when asked a questionm, his answer was always prompt, always wholesome (nothing important left out) and always true, as best as I could make out. It was much the same the two times I asked Scott directly what he thought (the last time about AD829, remember?), all the time with Nigel, all the time with Christophe, all the time with Demian Martin (1audio), and John Curl. They did have something to say and were not stingy in answering. All this is almost the exact opposite of known "objectivists", who sometimes didn't even answer a query, or slammed back their usual theses and that was that, take it or leave it.
No room for any trace of flexibility.
What kind of information and views? I ask because it matters a great deal.
Agreed.
Great example: where I was insulted and *corrected* when I pointed out a minor discrepancy in a test jig. Even after the proprietor of the test jig agreed with the new analysis, the malefactor continued to persist in his error.
Another example, the wealth of insults that I have received from a well known industry figure because he didn't like my posts to other people that he apparently holds sacred.
If you are mystified as to why I spend so much time here spouting sarcastic comments bordering on insults, maybe you need a little sensitivity training so that you actually put on your man pants and take exception to just a few of the gratuitous insults that I have to deal with.
As they say, love is blind.
The obvious answer is information about audio.
However there seems to be a strong element of political correctness that is widely practiced around here.
If you agree with certain well-known audio authorities and hold their sayings sacred, then you can cruise on through.
If you affirm others, your name is mud, people make a point of claiming that everybody hates you, you are called insane, and there is an open season for insults directed at you.
@Evenharmonics:
Not long before Christmas Planet10, a moderator, had to admonish you with these words:
"On the 1st you speak of yourself. Here we have Jakob, obvisously well versed in actual statistics (a well established branch of mathematics), speaking well-established fact and you trying to brush it aside as if you can just make it fantasy… those fantasies are yours -- you show no familiarity with the subject.[/I]"
this was in response to you attempting to frustrate Jacob2 in another thread.
Your sole (well demonstrated) interest is to draw attention to yourself by continuing the same sort of harassment which drew the above quoted comment. On that basis I regret that I will not answer your question as posted above or any other question you may make.
Not long before Christmas Planet10, a moderator, had to admonish you with these words:
"On the 1st you speak of yourself. Here we have Jakob, obvisously well versed in actual statistics (a well established branch of mathematics), speaking well-established fact and you trying to brush it aside as if you can just make it fantasy… those fantasies are yours -- you show no familiarity with the subject.[/I]"
this was in response to you attempting to frustrate Jacob2 in another thread.
Your sole (well demonstrated) interest is to draw attention to yourself by continuing the same sort of harassment which drew the above quoted comment. On that basis I regret that I will not answer your question as posted above or any other question you may make.
Interesting that you can't see that your general audio politics generally line up more closely with the subjectivists.
From where I sit, and IME this has been true across many forums, that subjectivists more strongly tend to make more personal attacks. They don't believe in facts so they can't argue based on anything but their personal authority and aggressiveness.
Of course the subjectivists inherently can't distinguish between facts and myths because they don't believe in Science and think that everything is up to the individual. That's a weak position in general, and arguing from that position is a recipe for personal frustration.
You are entitled to your own opinion. Have you ever spotted shill posts on audio forums? I have, many times. Their main objective is to deceive the readers into believing that those boutique DACs, preamps, amps, cables, contact enhancers... etc improve sound and are worth the extra money. Is that a good thing? Of course not.
Having said the above, Jacob2, whose real name is unknown, posts like professional shills online and very likely he is one too, has gained supports from planet10, who happens to operate a company that sells electronic audio gear. Can you say group mentality?
When planet10 claimed that there are "Lots" of sounds that are audible but not measurable but failed to cite a single example, do you still take him seriously? Strangely, me calling him out on such misinformation bothers you and made you want to criticize me. I wonder why...
I think he sells speakers, not electronics. The ones with the polka dots.
It's OK, the Mods are very much aware I have anti-authoritarianism issues.
As do you : http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/lounge/270859-speaker-cable-lifters-stands-12.html#post4276694
And Mr Arnold B. Krueger.
(call me quaint, I do find Mr Neutron and Mr Wurcer highly interesting personas, and authoritative)
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/loun...ch-preamplifier-part-ii-2573.html#post4560868
I may have mis-remembered the exact details, but I was left scratching my head by your response to Scott here.
Again, my immediate reply below the linked one remains my message. I (and it seems a fair number of others!) would just like DiyAudio to be a little less antagonistic.
Last edited:
Thanks, honestly the response just caught me completely off guard and it's best to just drop this now. I don't have the energy to search USENET for the few posts I was referring to so Arny is welcome to spin it any way he wants. I think my friends (or people whose input I simply respect) here are intelligent enough to look at what was said and read the response themselves and make up their own minds.
So far dragging things out has uncovered the usual lack of reliable evidence.
It is true that the propensity of people of the subjectivist persuasion to make gratuitous personal attacks has been demonstrated. They don't even seem to know that they are doing it!
You apparently don't know enough about what jneutron has done on other forums and the meanings of insinuation and provocation, which explains why you linked that post in an attempt to equate me to your insinuating and provocative post. You failed.
I only encountered Jneutron on AVS and he was a knowledgeable guy to a point, but he went overboard on minute details and sometimes got very emotional about it. He melted down one too many times I guess and apparently he was banned.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.