The science of opinion ...

Based on the responses so far, I think one can postulate that for some, they consider the people here their peers ...

nonoise5,071 posts11-05-2019 11:15amI would think a poster here would be less inclined to be a sheeple than if they were in an actual setting of peers.

They may conclude independently whether a benefit was there or not. They may conclude there was a benefit when in fact there was no perceptible change at all. When they go online and see others doing it, it reinforces their perception. This happens often in many areas and people are 100% convinced even though what they believe is impossible.

This forum allows anonymity which can encourage less sheepleness, if not publicly in the forums, at least privately. Some protest a lot, but you see seeds of doubt or understanding every once in a while.  Also remember the majority rarely or never post, they just come to read for opinions.

I am not starting to suspect, I know someone does not understand double blind testing ... well pretty much at all.

With a large group, double blind testing removes individual bias, and performance issues, especially since you can look at group data to determine if any individual performs significantly above average suggesting further investigation is warranted.


On an individual level, if your system or ears are not good enough  ... well then double blind will prevent you from spending with your eyes on audio equipment, which is a fools path unless done knowingly, except for really cool looking turntables (which are art). You are not a fool are you geoff?

Thank you for providing a prime example of some of the things discussed in this article and similar ones ....


If I am tearing anything down, then it was teetering already. Feel free to address the aspects of what I write as they relate to audio instead of attacking me personally and perhaps you will not have to worry about something fragile falling down.

teo_audio1,201 posts11-05-2019 12:51pmRe the OP:

He’s not doing these sorts of threads because he cares about audio or high end audio or the people who desire quality audio in their lives.

Hes trying to crash it, he’s trying to tear it down, he’s trying to force it to follow HIS dogma. Every post he makes screams this point, either openly, or subtly.

See it for what it is.

Your post suggests there is anyone "harmed". Would you care to address how anyone has been harmed and what specific actions have harmed them.

I don’t have to act as the harmed one, I am just the latest in a long string I expect of people who have been dog-piled. No worries though. Nothing you say changes the veracity of what I write and nothing, nothing I say will speak as loudly as the silence ... the silence of addressing what I say, and now who is saying it.

teo_audio1,202 posts11-05-2019 1:20pmI’d expect that his next tactic would be to try and be polite in everyone’s eyes..act as the harmed one... and try to label me as being anti-science for my direct mention of the subtle manipulations and obvious intent within them.

Oh come on Geoff, you love the drama. You feed it, you water it, and you live off it. You are the biggest troll of all. Not everyone is fooled.

Trying out AmazonHD via VPN myself .... this will force Spotify and Google's and Apple's hand. In some ways the best thing that could happen to the democratization of better and high resolution digital.

geoff,
You are a man of science. Did you read the article I linked to? You may  like it.

If this was true, then you would be able to easily address anything I say with some level of detail and confidence, not call me the charlatan. Again, the silence is deafening.


You also assume you and a few prolific posters here are the sole holders of audio knowledge and how dare anyone question it. There is a whole world out there teo_audio beyond these four walls.

The question is, why would anyone, anyone at all feel the need to have a sword of justice in this consumer audio market. That is just such a weird weird thing to say.

teo_audio1,203 posts11-05-2019 1:57pmto the op,

these subjects and subject areas have been covered a hundred times over.

what you are, is just the next one to come along and try to raise them like a sword of justice ...one built out of your own limited understandings of the entire envelope of what is involved... in the area under discussion.

You don't know the subject, and your data and your knowledge is severely lopsided.

What ruins the informational value of a forum more?

• Unchallenged opinion?
• Challenging not based on content, but your personal emotional response?

We are all just fish in the sea elizabeth,

The first attractor is the presence of a critical mass of uncertain individuals who happen to share a similar opinion. In fact, when such a cluster of individuals is initially present in the system­—either by chance or because individuals share a common bias—the rest of the crowd tends to converge toward it, as illustrated by Fig. 5-Example2. This majority effect is typical of conformity experiments that have been conducted in the past [37], where a large number of people sharing the same opinion have a strong social influence on others.

The second attractor is the presence of one or a few highly confident individuals, as illustrated by Fig. 5-Example3. The origin of this expert effect is twofold: First, very confident individuals exert strong persuasive power, as shown by the influence map. Second, unconfident people tend to increase their own confidence after interacting with a very confident person, creating a basin of attraction around that person’s opinion

Our simulation results also identified two elements that can cause such amplification loops: the expert effect—induced by the presence of a highly confident individual, and the majority effect—induced by a critical mass of low-confidence individuals sharing similar opinions. Moreover, the presence of a significant number of neutral individuals holding a random opinion and a low confidence level around these two attractive forces tends to increase the unpredictability of the final outcome [15]. Therefore, neutral individuals make the crowd less vulnerable to the influence of opinion attractors, and thus less predictable. By contrast, recent studies on animal groups have shown that the presence of uninformed individuals in fish schools acts in favor of the numerical majority, at the expense of very opinionated individuals

I think the being honest with yourself part was missed.

History favours the bold, not the polite, though politeness is obviously an admirable goal, but to have politeness, one has to be honest, not only with others but with oneself. That honesty, I find more lacking in forums, than politeness. If we cannot be honest and accept our own limitations, then what value politeness?


I would rather someone call me something to my face and let me defend myself, then treat me with complete politeness, while talking behind my back.

Ethan would be like kryptonite to you geoff, he knows almost everything about a subject to which you know almost nothing :-)  .... serious side: he can be dogmatic and jumps to conclusions without considering all variables, and will fight you, but he does listen. Speaking purely of acoustics at this point.

geoff,
Is that a pain in the pocket book you are feeling? You worry about people in the AES ... but I don’t think they worry too much about you, other than "I hope he is all right. Are you sure he doesn't need his medication?"

More email editing way after the fact ... ;-)

phys.org is a popular science site. It collects and displays articles that are of "interest" to the general population. Little there is esoteric or of a fundamental nature unless it relates to things that are public conscious items. Even mentioning it was nothing but a call to authority (much like your rebuttal), but your attempt at justification of its values to a very specific industry and discipline was interesting.


As you talk a lot about science, you must have an AES membership?  I don't see you there. Do you subscribe to any of the several acoustics and pyschoacoustics journals?  Materials sciences?

I never used the word charlatan, but generally that word is assigned to someone who makes extraordinary claims, claims that they are unwilling to or can't back up in something approaching a controlled situation where the claims can be verified or disproved.

Unfortunately elizabeth,
I feel that many on this forum are too scared to read scientific articles. They are not the safe space they are looking for.

Skerdi is that you?

.... and for all this talk of "science", I wonder how many of you even took the time to read the article linked. I know at least one of you did not, which makes anything you write here just bluster.

Say what you will about Ethan, but I am quite certain of something, if someone is spending real money to set up the acoustics for a professional studio, they certainly aren't going to be hiring geoffkait, not thyname, and sorry teo_audio, but outside your sphere of influence, not you either.  I also don't see respected and successful books on audio with your names on it either.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with him on everything, not even everything in acoustics, but the average audiophile is going to learn far more about improving their sound from him, since most audiophiles, the vast majority, have acoustically deficient spaces ... and that applies to people with very expensive systems as well.  He also believes his expertise extends to all things audio, and I don't believe that is the case .... but like anyone on this thread is not guilty of that?


Sorry thyname, I don't believe for a moment that Ethan has numerous accounts that he posts under. That was a slander/libel created by one notorious vendor in the audiophile community, who used that to attempt to deflect his own dishonesty and inability to stand behind his claims. It it obvious from the posts, whether writing style or knowledge behind the posts, that they are not Ethan.


p.s. phys.org is a news aggregator of science oriented press releases. It is not where one does scientific research.

Two hours ago, I predicted two decades ago that people like you would never be honest and would always try to twist words to suit their attempted argument.

I am not making claims (for the most part), though I may be refuting claims. The burden of proof has always been on the one making the claim, especially when it goes against a vast established body of ... well real evidence. This really is a hard concept. "Trust me" ... only gets you so far.

It is totally totally weird how easy it is to set up something approaching a controlled situation for proving claims (and increasing sales) in audio, and yet no one does. I don’t mean most don’t do it, I don’t mean it is not done very often, I mean well never. When my company does something better than our competitors, we go out of our way to show our claims are factual. Strange huh .... you would think "trust us" would be more than enough, but no, they actually want us to prove it.

geoffkait18,071 posts11-07-2019 11:19am

>>>>>There it is! Just as I predicted two hours ago! It’s the others who don’t understand. It’s the others who make false claims. I used to think this thread was a drama. Now I realize it’s a comedy. 🤡 By the way, your definition of charlatan is bogus, Ethan.

Let's start by addressing this:
geoffkait, how many professional studios have you set up the acoustics for?  thyname?   teo?  

How many of you could write this page? .... or better yet, where are your tons of praised articles and books on acoustics?

https://ethanwiner.com/acoustics.html
Thought so ....

cleeds2,533 posts11-07-2019 12:38pmYou’ve made plenty of claims here, some of them especially absurd.

I am quite certain of something, if someone is spending real money to set up the acoustics for a professional studio, they certainly aren’t going to be hiring geoffkait, not thyname, and sorry teo_audio, but outside your sphere of influence, not you either.

• Now, lets address this one.

First, what is the goal of the test? Is it to prove that A is better than B? ... nope, that would require a properly administered test (which by the way is not hard, just requires methodology)
No, our goal is to validate or disprove the claims which include, but are of course not limited to:

• There was a huge and immediate change in the sound
• The bass was extended and tighter
• The highs took on an almost ethereal quality
• The change was not subtle, it was enormous.
• How anyone could not hear a difference, I have no idea
• This "product" will always make a noticeable difference

So, you see, proving or disproving these claims does not require a highly detailed scientific study to attempt to isolate one variable in a situation where many variables can change, often without notice. This is a single variable change, and we don't need a huge sample set of people, we only need 1 person -- the person making the claim, but sure, if you would like to extend it to all people making the claim to increase statistical sample size, then sure ... have at it.  The thing is Cleeds, proving something true to a level of reasonable doubt (we are talking a subjective subject) does require a somewhat robust experiment. However, we are not trying to prove something is true, we are trying to prove something is false, and that only requires one case, but if you would like to prove it false with many people, I am all for it :-)

I cannot be expected to tell a difference on a different system. I know my system inside and out, and can tell even the slightest change:

• Great, let's do the test on your system.

You can't tell the difference in a fast switching test. I need more time to listen, X needs to settle, etc.

• Great, no problem. Take absolutely as much time as you want, as long as you don't know which change is made.
  

You can only tell on certain music.

• You can use any music you want and listen for absolutely as long as you want.

I don't even know why anyone argues this point any more. Every excuse has a solution, and for every solution, there will be another excuse ... including your unfounded difficult to do a scientific experiment excuse ... because as I stated above, it is not.  If you or anyone else claims that:

• They can always and easily hear the difference on THEIR system

Then all one needs to do is replicate the test, double blind on their system.

If one claims:

• Anyone with good ears can easily hear the change on a highly resolving system.

Then all one needs to do is allow them to configure a suitably resolving system (of their choice) and then let them pick the people with "good ears" and run the test (double blind).   If those people can't show any statistical ability to detect the change, and keep in mind these are people motivated to do that, then you have proved the statement false.

It is totally totally weird how easy it is to set up something approaching a controlled situation for proving claims (and increasing sales) in audio, and yet no one does. I don’t mean most don’t do it, I don’t mean it is not done very often, I mean well never

It isn’t really clear what you’re saying here, but you’re completely mistaken if you believe that setting up a valid controlled scientific listening test is easy. Those that I’ve seen conduct such tests go to great lengths to ensure their validity.

But of course, that isn’t quite what you said, you said it’s easy to set up a test that’s "approaching a controlled situation." Such a test isn’t scientific at all, of course, so its value is no better than the sighted tests that you decry.

Once again, we have a contributor here who pleads with others to conduct the sort of listening tests he himself refuses to do. What’s with that? Beware the audio ignorant.

Hey oregonpapa,

You installed the GATE and you said it made an absolutely night and day difference in your system. If I am mistaken, you already had some level of power-conditioning, expensive power cords, etc.  I thought the whole point of those things is so that something like the GATE would not be needed.

If the GATE truly makes the tremendous difference you claim, wouldn't that mean that all the other power products and tweaks were perhaps not performing nearly as well as you thought ... I believe you claimed those made a tremendous difference as well.

🏙️🤓⬆️

And yet here you are .. on a thread about the science of opinion.

elizabeth,

I would like an ability something less shotgun like than an out and out block of a user, as say Facebook which would prevent them from responding as they can never see your threads, to something more scalpel like, like blocking users on a per thread basis, just to save the effort of having to continually remove posts.

mapman,

I think the seemingly mindless meanderings of a certain poster and other posts made in this thread (and other threads) more clearly illustrates the concepts communicated in this paper than any planned demonstration could ever hope to achieve, and to that end, it will meet its educational value to those that want to learn.

Note, when geoffkait makes a post, statistically there's a 99% probability the post will add 0 value to the discussion.

geoff are you a vampire?

You mean what think you perceive that you hear?

Perhaps they were stringing words together just fine, but you did not understand? And just who have you met?


Copy/paste ... no one that has a technical background and experience in this field needs to cut and paste. Conjecture changes by the day, facts don’t.


Thank you again for proving the validity of this thread.

thyname390 posts11-08-2019 10:50pmObviously. But which one is the question. The main honcho, or someone who just copy/ paste them?

I am pretty sure if I spent a day or two on those forums, I would have enough material to copy / paste their  (likely also copy / paste from someone else), and spread it around all Internet audio groups. That’s what these guys do. Meet one of them in person, and you will see. I have. And they can barely put a few words together.

You are just proving my point thecarpathian ... you are in this thread, a thread you pshaw, but you have to get your statement in. I mean how could you, of all people .... be possibly fooled by your own ears and brain to convince yourself you are hearing or not hearing something. You could never fool yourself like that.

I actually find that you truly believe that mildly amusing. I don't perceive you to be ignorant, and perhaps you are being shilled, but I don't follow your purchasing decisions, so I can't say and how you spend your money is completely your choice, but you are fooling yourself. If I have any goal at all, it is to help other people not fool themselves.

I also find it amusing as you and others attempt to paint me with a broad brush, just like you paint everyone else that dares to disagree with you and does it with passion (and backs it up with knowledge).  You won't find me putting down turntables, whether I find them technically inferior or not, I have enough knowledge about psychoacoustics to know that their imperfections in signal reproduction can be aurally pleasing. I won't be saying all amplifiers sound the same, both because I have heard differences in controlled tests, and also because I have measured differences with complex real loads. Though, within a range of amplifiers and speakers, it is probably effectively true, hence why blind tests have shown little ability to differentiate.

I won't claim that signal transmission is at all affected in a streamer by a cable for any modern competent USB or ethernet DAC, and I will call out any claim that bit timing makes a differences in those scenarios (but can prove other timing never mentioned may), because, it is just not true in any modern DAC, both because they don't time off USB or Ethernet, and because data loss in a home environment is so close to 0 as to be 0.  Similarly, I will take on any "technie" that does understand that noise injection, even via Ethernet can be an issue.


I am also going to call out anyone that claims one particular fuse is going to make an improvement in every piece of equipment ... because I know enough about and have enough experience designing audio equipment of various types to know that what potentially improves an amplifier could make a pre-amplifier or a source worse, and even what makes an amplifier better at low volume is different from what may help at high volume.  I will maintain a healthy skepticism as well about cables, at least interconnnects and speaker cables, again due to claims of "always improves", given how varied source/loads are in audio, that no cable vendor will shine light on their claims with blind tests, that actual blind tests don't show differences .... AND .... because I have lost count of the number of times an "audiophile" buddy has claimed they could clearly hear a difference .... and then I proved they didn't by taking away their ability to know what product they were listening to. Clearly that statement does not apply to turntable cables who can massively impact cartridge loading, that time a better power cable was cutting through corrosion on an IEC receptacle and the odd EMI issue with cheap cables.

It is a popular refrain with products with questionable value that "we can't measure everything", we don't understand all the measurements, the ear is complex, the brain is complex, and similar refrains including the usual misquoting or wrong application of psycho-acoustic research or just right out false-hood (sensitivity to phase being a common one).  When one discusses how we as human's perceive sound, for the most part, they are absolutely correct. We don't know how to take acoustic measurements and translate them into how a human will perceive them with high accuracy. We have some good ideas, but given human-human variance, we will never have one view of perfection. The one good thing we have a pretty good handle on is the limits of human hearing, critically limits on perception of sounds both on their own, and masked by louder sounds.


However, when we are talking purely electrical signals, which covers amplifiers, cables, power, the noise on a turntable (and what it can mask), etc. we can measure with exceptional resolution and accuracy, think of what we are able to measure in the scientific field and what level of resolution and accuracy that must require. So when someone says " we don't know what to measure", that is absolutely true when you are trying to compare the euphonics of a turntable and a 24/192 DAC, and true when viewed for what MFRs share with customers, or quite frankly, what is possible with the equipment that many boutique companies have. But to say we can't measure the impact of a cable or fuse and how that is going to correlate to human perception is just not true ..... what it is is convenient.

Knowing how you behave on Facebook, I will pass thank you. If I did, you would be running to Facebook in 5 minutes to tell Ted, I know the obsession you and him have with Ethan.

The person that is most out of their depth on here is you. You try to bully people with technical terms that frankly you misuse and I (and others) certainly don't think you understand. You cannot even back up the most simple claims, i.e. about impedance matching when asked to explain and try to deflect claiming attacks and stolen patent issues.  You have shown 0 understanding of "complex equations" and just use terms like that to bully others, or in attempts to look erudite, sort of like now using  "Godel’s incompleteness theorem" on an audio forum. I mean really dude, what sort of person does that???


How about instead of spewing attempted math/physics philosophy, you actually communicate something that shows you have any level of true expertise in anything related to audio. I have seen you put down recognized experts in this field, but from where I am sitting, that now just looks like sour grapes.


You don't even get irony .... which is not at all a surprise. My statement was ridiculous, just like the one that proceeded it.

teo_audio1,215 posts11-08-2019 6:28pm

You mean what think you perceive that you hear?

You are way out of your depth, on a complex set of equations and conditions that you know little to nothing about.

Which means you are likely to never get it. The intellectual version of Godel’s incompleteness theorem.

You can’t even get the sentence correct, nor realize it, after you pressed post.

dill,

9 days and I have already received quite a few personal messages. I am quite happy to make friends with people I would want to be friends with in real life. 23.5? ... geoff does that in an hour.


Instead of reflecting on how many posts I have made in 9 days, perhaps reflect on who comes to this particular thread (and my 5 stages one). While some came in, made a comment and left, the usual suspects, the real prolific posters with many many thousands of posts, who pshaw the very notion of these two threads, are the ones repeatedly posting in them. Why are a few paragraphs of text so threatening?

You like Ethan ....
How many times have you posted in a certain FB group angrily about him, not one that he is a member I might add, with cut and paste of other groups? ...

Nope, left that childish, sexist group ages ago. If I want to see audio porn, I look in front of me. If I want to see a sexy lady, I just have to look down the couch. If I want to whine about how someone on another forum was mean to me, just shoot me.

I laughed when I read this. I had a high end (at the time) Fisher Boom Box (no really, they had some good ones, this one even had a phono input), that I had lent to my girlfriend. When we broke up, it was "displeasure of asking for it back, or just forget about it".  I chose to forget about it, but years later regretted it. It was a piece of nostalgia I wish I would have kept. I never regretted breaking up :-)

glupson2,813 posts11-08-2019 9:31pm

"...tiny pro speakers on kiddie stools from Walmart..."

For years, my only system was a $100 boombox on a Walmart stool. It seems that those soul saviors had gotten me way before I heard about them.

By the authority invested in the internet, I hereby grant you the ability to say and do whatever you want, within the bounds of local laws and the rules of the platform of your choice, always with the understanding that you accept whatever backlash may result.

thyname, in years I have never seen you illustrate a willingness to learn, What has changed?   I thought you already knew who I am?

I see the usual suspects are overly triggered this morning. I had some fun, got a run, in, had a wonderful breakfast with my wife, and all the while you guys were being keyboard warriors. Priority mates ;-)

geoff, please keep insulting the Audio Engineering Society (AES) and calling them pseudo-skeptics. I am sure when the average joe looks for audio advice he will take that of a guy selling magic pebbles over a group of actually recognized experts ... nice to see you have your PhD in psychology and/or behavioural sciences now as well. Unfortunately, you probably don’t so that negates us having some interesting discussions on the topic. Oh well .... your "backfire effect" is old news. I know, already huh? It was an interesting theory, and there may be instances, but overall, it has been shown in larger studies to be .... wait for it .... wait for it .... wait for it .... false http://educationblog.oup.com/theory-of-knowledge/facts-matter-after-all-rejecting-the-backfire-effe...
There are many other supporting articles, so don’t take my one link for it, research it yourself.

But even if partially true, I don’t go on forums to convert ostriches. They are a lost cause. I come to forums to help, even discuss with the vast majority that are truly interested in the best sound they can achieve for a given dollar, most of who just read but never post. The ones who go, "Hey, ya, why are there no blind listening tests by suppliers in whole audio categories if their claims of differences are so substantial", but also the ones who need guidance so they spend money on things that will truly make a difference like speakers and room treatment. They may not know how foolish it is to wax poetically about how the latest fuse or cable change totally improved sound-stage and imaging, meanwhile room acoustics are so poor that good imaging will never happen, and compared to the rest of the system, the speakers are in serious need of an upgrade.


And t_ramey, call it saviour complex all you like, most call it being a decent human when you help others. Would you tell an auto-mechanic or automotive engineer they have saviour complex when they tell someone on a forum, that no, the latest 200mpg "gadget" is just like all the ones before it, bunk? Or maybe the electrical engineer who tells the potential mark, that no, that magic PFC device that someone wants to charge you $400 for is not going to save you 20-30% on electricity and likely won’t make any difference you will notice because North American residential electricity is sold on kWh, not kVA? Do they have saviour complex as well, or are they just putting their expertise to good public service and helping their extended neighbour? Who knows, maybe you are one of those people who rails against the Doctor who publicly and often tells people to get vaccinated because yes, herd immunity matters, or the medical researcher who jumps on forums and claims, quite correctly, that so many "alternate medicines" don’t help, and not getting proper treatment could endanger you.

This "magical thinking" is not the exclusive domain of the the poor, the less intelligent, or the less educated. In fact, it appears to strike those of above average intelligence and accomplishment more, as they are more convinced of their own superiority.

A few year back, someone was diagnosed with a form of pancreatic cancer. Fortunately for them, that form of cancer was one of the least aggressive forms of pancreatic cancer with a high success rate of cure. Their doctors recommended immediate surgery. Their family and friends encouraged them as well. Believing they knew better than doctors, instead, they started a regimen of acupuncture, supplements, and alternative dietary interventions. By the time they accepted that alternative treatments were not working, the cancer had spread and no amount of money could save them. Not some average joe, Steve Jobs. So the next time you through around a term like saviour complex, remember, that even the best and brightest need to be reminded at times that they are wearing no clothes.

The majority of people that buy audiophile equipment read forums, but they don’t post in them. Most people who can afford this stuff are of above average intelligence. My posts are not for the ostriches, they are for everyone else .... if you are going to watch a train wreck, it is best not to be on the train.

dill946 posts11-08-2019 11:10pmOP- " Instead of reflecting on how many posts I have made in 9 days, perhaps reflect on who comes to this particular thread (and my 5 stages one). While some came in, made a comment and left, the usual suspects, the real prolific posters with many many thousands of posts, who pshaw the very notion of these two threads, are the ones repeatedly posting in them. Why are a few paragraphs of text so threatening?"

- Way too many words, in such a short time, that mean less to the masses than to the author. Nobody has left, just watching the train wreck, can’t look away ...

Maybe I have more to contribute?

thyname402 posts11-09-2019 11:37a
Look who’s talking about keyboard warriors! You just wrote a thesis, right now. And you just joined Audiogon (under this handle at least), and have already written over 200 posts. In a few days, you will have more posts than me, and I joined in 2005.

To the person that is trying to imply that an informed public is somehow akin to communism, and yet exhibits the characteristics of marxists themselves in their attempted stifling of informed debate:

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.

And yet you felt the need to virtue signal your departure. Would you like to take your ball with you too?

thecarpathian712 posts11-09-2019 12:15pmZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
You have officially bored me sleep.
It was fun for a bit. Now it’s a petty annoyance.

Maybe you were up earlier. I think geoff goes to bed at 9pm. I was up early enough, I just have a better handle on what really matters based on the posts I see here.

That old adage about the early bird gets the worm, or that early risers are more accomplished and get more done ..... just another old wives tail. It’s the people who stay up late that get more done.

Oh, and if this thread is of no value, why do you post in it soooo often?  Maybe it matters to you, but you don't want to admit it, even to yourself?

I think in modern day parlance, what he was doing (pointless blathering) was virtue signalling.  He was trying to signal his virtue, that virtue of being "above it all" while the rest of us are just cretins shouting among ourselves here. The repeated posts in this thread on a balance of evidence negate that virtue.

glupson2,826 posts11-09-2019 11:19amuberwaltz,

Don’t get me wrong, but your post about pointless blathering was no more on point than any of geoffkait’s, mine, or anybody else’s posts in this thread.

Even your report about what you are doing now could not pass into The Science of Opinion.
It was pointless blathering, as far as this thread is concerned. Good news is that this thread is made for pointless blathering so nobody will be bothered by your posts, either.

Bringing out my handy dandy mirror:

- geoffkait with over 18,000 posts is certainly not here to "learn"- thyname with so many posts in so few days with so few topics ... is not here to learn- uberwalz ... 8,000 posts

I am honest about what draws me to audio-forums; share knowledge, but I will also engage people on discussions of euphonics, i.e. around turntables, etc. trying to gleam some tidbit of knowledge about how to translate what a turntable does, to how people perceive it, and how to adapt that to listening experiences. 

If you have thousands and thousand of posts, you are not here "to learn", you are here to banter, and to tell other people what you know.  I am being honest with myself ... some others should try it sometimes. It will probably make you less angry :-)

Perhaps with all the bloviating and chest pumping, not to mention actual heart surgery (interesting story by the way), you missed my excellent dismissal of your attempted take down where I showed the tool you used in your attempted take down was made of Balsa wood. Do I really need to point out that you failed, in your analysis, to differentiate between loud ostriches and the silent majority, which is really not a good look since the paper, for whatever faults it has, clearly does ... but really, the tool made of Balsa was enough to take out your take down, light it on fire, and watch it go up in smoke ... which it did quickly, and with a pleasant aroma being made of Balsa.


No worries geoff, I humour you because I understand you need the mental banter to keep your mind sharp, and that you would argue from a position of obvious error or ignorance just for the sport and mental arithmetic. I see you call out snake-oil on here all the time, you just bury it in banter so many do not notice.

geoffkait18,126 posts11-09-2019 4:20pmJust as I expected. atdavid attacked me personally rather than respond to my brilliant take-down of the “scientific” article he linked to in his OP. Now ask me if I was expecting anything different. It appears to me and I hope I’m not being overly judgmental but atdavid is basically saying do as I say not as I do.

Think of me as you would the caretaker Delbert Grady in The Shining. I’ve always been here.

“If I could explain it to the average Joe Blow they wouldn’t have given me the Nobel prize.”