He said that only for the pleasure to call some in "bad faith" perhaps and stirring an already troubled pot...
This is a question of acoustic concepts and then of ignorance not of "bad faith" or belief...
It takes few thinking minutes and a simple science aricles search to understand that WE CANNOT distinguish from a background something or an information for which we have not concept......We will automatically dismiss this information as meaningless or like an unperceived background or the 2 at the same times mostly ... Most perception is a learning process of recognition, all the rest is put under the rug as non existing phenomena...
It is true also in acoustic where the background is noise and the information is hidden in it......Why do blind people perceive all forms of houses and tress, and cars around them cycling blind without errors and not you? It is because you never learned to access this information, it is a noise for you and me...
How can you ask for example to someone to detail his experience of "listener envelopment/source width" or LEV/ASW ratio if he never experiment it CONSCIOUSLY ? Someone here very knowledgeable accuse my description to be an "illusion", not knowing that there is no pure objectivity in acoustic separated from a perceiving subjectivity... "Illusion" in music /sound is sometimes our REALITY it is called "meaning"......
It is a question of knowledge and experience in learning experiments not of belief..
Than accusing others of "bad faith" only mirror the accuser himself...For sure there is times to times bad faith but it is impossible to accuse an entire group which think and experiment otherwise... Ignorance and lack of acoustics experiments exlain everything in acoustic experience, bad faith justify the person speaking and accusing perhaps, and explain nothing... It is " ideological" babble at best,,,
By the way it is not a " table game" but a CORRELATION optimization process between subjective and objective factors...
Audio is not a gang stake game or a marchandise marketing game first... It is first and last acoustic knowledge and experiments ... Period....
We all wanted a great musical experience with an optimal sound experience at the least cost...
This has nothing to do with miraculously superior piece of gear either, even if they exist for sure...
It is related to mechanical, electrical and acoustical and psycho-acoustical controls in the system/house/room...
In a word the best measured numbers for a piece of gear will not replace a good room and a good room wil not make a badly designed piece of gear a better one...
In physical acoustic all empirical measures and objective disposition SERVE psycho-acoustical experience and research...And all discoveries about the hearing process and his subjective aspects help us to design improved objective acoustical environment...
The audio system itself is a tool not the only cause factor nor the goal of the acoustic experience...
Then listening the gear without any objective measures nor any objective acoustic disposition around it is ignorance...
But measuring pieces of gear without listening them in the rightful acoustic environment to assess the relation with the measuring process is without much value and is another kind of ignorance, a different hobby at best...
This is a point that I and others have brought up before in similar threads. I truly believe that a lot of objectivists who argue here can hear the differences that others do and simply dismiss them as insignificant. https://eldfall-chronicles.com/
The underlying reasons are not important. What is, is that they are dealing in bad faith.
Hey I really like playing table games because they are great example of Empirical Evidence as a whole when each game progresses.
