- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,481
- Likes
- 12,595
I simply found the numerous connotations amusing.
Ha, ok, thanks.
And, now that you mention it...
I simply found the numerous connotations amusing.
Do I detect a supremacist tone, in your statement " Or learn, Your choice"?I think it is a sweet reminder that this thread is a dumping ground for posts made elsewhere by science-refusing believers who have sucked up all the cool-aid myths of recorded-audio reproduction and playback. And where they can find answers. Or they can go full denialist and refuse to learn or understand the answers, and argue to the ends of the earth. Yes, you know who you are, and this is your thread, guys. Have at it.
Or learn. Your choice.
cheers
Do I detect a supremacist tone, in your statement " Or learn, Your choice"?
I don't know you, and certainly nothing in your profile could be an excuse for this kind of Finger pointing.
Shouldn't we All be learning?
Or have you reached that zenith of knowledge (because you can read graphs!) that learning is for your subordinates?
There is more to learn about measurements and comprehending the data, yet to be discovered.
This thread and this particular quote were mentioned in the recent Darko’s podcast where he discusses measurements with GoldensoundI have a scale for how much measurements matter for each category of products:
DACs: 100%
Amplifiers (headphone and speaker): 80 to 90% due to variability of available power. Hard to internalize how much power is available/enough without listening tests.
Speakers: 70 to 80%
Headphones: 50 to 80% (measurements too variable)
This is why you see me do listening tests for the last two categories and half of second (headphone amps).
Don't ! none of us is that clever.But I do feel superior to those still believing
For more than 50% of applications, Earth is flat!in the flat earth "theory". And I'm not holding my breath that some yet to be discovered to prove that earth really is flat.
So science still needs to explain why earth is flat in your "50% of applications"? Didn't realize we had such wide open questions left I thought Euclid explained that a few thousand years ago, but it's never too late to revisit and prove geometry wrong.Don't ! none of us is that clever.
For more than 50% of applications, Earth is flat!
this is what "comprehending the data" means.
Where something matters, where it doesn't.
Absolutes are not practical .
That was responded by Einstein, in this famous "Theory of relativity" ...So science still needs to explain why earth is flat in your "50% of applications"? Didn't realize we had such wide open questions left I thought Euclid explained that a few thousand years ago, but it's never too late to revisit and prove geometry wrong.
So science still needs to explain why earth is flat in your "50% of applications"? Didn't realize we had such wide open questions left I thought Euclid explained that a few thousand years ago, but it's never too late to revisit and prove geometry wrong.
Right! Einstein explained why earth appears flat at short distances... Yes, I seem to recall that mentioned somewhere near E=mc^2That was responded by Einstein, in this famous "Theory of relativity" ...
No supremacist tone at all. When I wrote ‘you’, I was specifically directed to the people who come here with a denialist attitude and a resistance to learning the key points that audio science has revealed, preferring to recite blatant myths born of sighted listening. A key indicator of that attitude is when people trot out the old platitude about “science is always overwriting today’s knowledge with tomorrow’s discoveries, so I don’t see any reason to accept anything about today’s science. ’Cos, y’know, Einstein.” I didn’t bring that attitude here, and I learn here.Do I detect a supremacist tone, in your statement " Or learn, Your choice"?
I don't know you, and certainly nothing in your profile could be an excuse for this kind of Finger pointing.
Shouldn't we All be learning?
Or have you reached that zenith of knowledge (because you can read graphs!) that learning is for your subordinates?
There is more to learn about measurements and comprehending the data, yet to be discovered.
The discussion itself is pretty interesting, gives some food for thought
But not much self-awareness. Consider:Newman, your replies suggest you may have some technical knowledge.
I am sorry if it gave you that impression, not my intention. Respect.Your post, OTOH, oozes resentment at me for pointing that out…
Yes, you know who you are, and this is your thread, guys. Have at it.
Or learn. Your choice.
Don't ! none of us is that clever.
For more than 50% of applications, Earth is flat!
this is what "comprehending the data" means.
Where something matters, where it doesn't.
Absolutes are not practical .
You've really missed the point.But not much self-awareness. Consider:
He repeatedly makes the point that opinions based on sighted listening are per se delusions. E.g., from a very recent post: "It's just a false concept that people get, even about themselves, from making the massive mistake of "trusting their ears" in sighted listening, and trusting that sighted listening reveals qualities in the sound waves. Big mistake." (Point of clarification - is the mistake massive, or merely big?) And from today: " ... blatant myths born of sighted listening." And so on, endlessly.
Yet not long ago he conceded he established his preference for multichannel over two-channel via sighted listening. And chose his speakers via sighted listening.
Thus by his own standards, he has no idea what's really in the sound waves. He's wallowing in his own delusions. Why pay attention?
Learning is a choice, accepting something on faith is also a choice. Nothing supremacist about that.
You've really missed the point.
It's not about avoiding buying or preferring anything unless you can perform a blind test. It's about *what claims you make* about the audio and the gear what you bought or preferred , based on your evaluation method.
Newman is aware, I'm sure, like me, that his sighted preference is open to all sorts of bias. He has made his awareness of sighted bias and scientific methods to thwart same, very clear. So either you're demanding that he add a disclaimer to every mention of his audio choices that aren't purely measurement based -- 'NB: preferences was based on sighted evaluation, the usual caveats apply' -- or you've simply not been following along.