[Wyville]

Well, that kind of thing is exactly what I want to avoid. The usual attack phrases and angry tone.

Honestly, I think your only option is not to post here because this part of the forums does not seem like it will ever change. I would love to have a sub-forum here to discuss the science behind this hobby, be it technological, biological or psychological. I have said so here before, but every time I pop in to see what is going on I see the same things. An environment where you have to tread very lightly and that makes the name of the forum profoundly ironic.

 

[gregorio]

... every time I pop in to see what is going on I see the same things. An environment where you have to tread very lightly and that makes the name of the forum profoundly ironic.

Sticking to the facts, reliable evidence and science is only "treading lightly" if you're used to presenting opinions or lies which fly in the face of the facts/science. How is this "profoundly ironic" exactly?

G

 

[Wyville]

Sticking to the facts, reliable evidence and science is only "treading lightly" if you're used to presenting opinions or lies which fly in the face of the facts/science. How is this "profoundly ironic" exactly?

G

Because this place is not as scientific as it likes to think it is. A lot of what I read here merely has a superficial resemblance to science.

 

[gregorio]

Because this place is not as scientific as it likes to think it is. A lot of what I read here merely has a superficial resemblance to science.

A lot of what I read here has no resemblance to science at all, not even a superficial resemblance! What it actually resembles is medieval folk lore, superstition and myth, marketing nonsense regurgitated as facts. You're right then, this place is not as scientific as it wants to be, because of all those who come here trying to peddle nonsense/myths and deliberately deflect from and avoid the science/actual facts!

G

 

[Wyville]

A lot of what I read here has no resemblance to science at all, not even a superficial resemblance! What it actually resembles is medieval folk lore, superstition and myth, marketing nonsense regurgitated as facts. You're right then, this place is not as scientific as it wants to be, because of all those who come here trying to peddle nonsense/myths and deliberately deflect from and avoid the science/actual facts!

G

I was actually referring to those who profess to be scientific not being as scientific as they would like to be.

 

[bfreedma]

Well, that kind of thing is exactly what I want to avoid. The usual attack phrases and angry tone. And defaming me and my work is actually legally fraught. If you tried to do this to Panasonics (for whom I worked), then you could end up in court.

Unfounded threats of legal action is the last resort of the fraudster.

It’s comical that you complain about the tone of conversation and for the second time have threatened me with legal action for simply asking you for measurements you state you have.

 

[SilentNote]

Honestly, I think your only option is not to post here because this part of the forums does not seem like it will ever change. I would love to have a sub-forum here to discuss the science behind this hobby, be it technological, biological or psychological. I have said so here before, but every time I pop in to see what is going on I see the same things. An environment where you have to tread very lightly and that makes the name of the forum profoundly ironic.

In my opinion, the people who venture into this section are not mentally prepared to have a discussion that takes the position of skepticism (null hypothesis) by default. They just want to have a "casual" chit chat.

That results in them throwing out claims left and right, and without supporting evidence or credible explanations, they get roasted. Then they feel as though the sound science section is so unfriendly.

But this is the sound science section, where you have to come prepared. Like really prepared. It's not a chit chat with your best buddy. Most are not here to have an "agreeable" discussion, or to feel good. I come here to weed out the crap that I'm told by people, and I am damn grateful this section exists for that purpose. It would have taken me months of research and meeting real experts to learn what I did here in just mere days.

If you know about the DISC personality types (Dominant, Influential, Stable, Conscientious ), I'm willing to bet most here are of the C type. Prepare your evidence or you will not be taken seriously.

 

[Wyville]

In my opinion, the people who venture into this section are not mentally prepared to have a discussion that takes the position of skepticism (null hypothesis) by default. They just want to have a "casual" chit chat.

That results in them throwing out claims left and right, and without supporting evidence or credible explanations, they get roasted. Then they feel as though the sound science section is so unfriendly.

But this is the sound science section, where you have to come prepared. Like really prepared. It's not a chit chat with your best buddy. If you know about the DISC personality types (Dominant, Influential, Stable, Conscientious ), I'm willing to bet most here are of the C type. Prepare your evidence or you will not be taken seriously.

None of this is necessary for a scientific discussion. What you are outlining here is people drawing battle lines for defending and attacking arguments, and that has nothing to do with science. It is what people think science does, but that is not how things work. Requiring people to "prepare or be roasted" is profoundly anti-intellectual, rigid, it closes doors and leads to dogmatic statements. It is the polar opposite of what a stimulating, open and creative platform for scientific discussions should look like.

 

[bfreedma]

None of this is necessary for a scientific discussion. What you are outlining here is people drawing battle lines for defending and attacking arguments, and that has nothing to do with science. It is what people think science does, but that is not how things work. Requiring people to "prepare or be roasted" is profoundly anti-intellectual, rigid, it closes doors and leads to dogmatic statements. It is the polar opposite of what a stimulating, open and creative platform for scientific discussions should look like.

Are you suggesting that claims made in Sound Science without any supporting data and/or evidence should go unquestioned?

The rest of head-FI operates under those parameters. This is the one subsection where members are allowed to ask for objective support - the same questions are banned on the rest of this site. That this one area bothers so many members is troubling to me - no one is required to post here, yet many visit and want to alter it.

If you think the bar is high here, try posting in Hydrogen Audio

 

[bigshot]

It's interesting how they seem to always come in tag teams and immediately leap to defending each other. It's also interesting how the people who say that science doesn't know enough are the first ones to act as the judge of "good" and "bad" science.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

None of this is necessary for a scientific discussion. What you are outlining here is people drawing battle lines for defending and attacking arguments, and that has nothing to do with science. It is what people think science does, but that is not how things work. Requiring people to "prepare or be roasted" is profoundly anti-intellectual, rigid, it closes doors and leads to dogmatic statements. It is the polar opposite of what a stimulating, open and creative platform for scientific discussions should look like.

That's what it may look like, in a field that is "wide open".

The history of sound science is more like this:
Early 20th century: real scientists established the bounds of human hearing, with actual credible tests.
Late 20th century: one by one all these bounds are met or exceeded by the state-of-the-art, then by the not so SOTA, then by 50 dollar off-brand Walkmans.
Thereafter: desperate to sell new stuff for more money, the audio salesmen engage in ever-escalating FUD campaigns to discredit past research. They attempt to wipe real audio science off the face of the earth and replace it with pseudoscientific woo, with increasing levels of success.

What we have here is one of the last bastions of sanity in audio circles, besieged by well-funded attackers from almost every audio manufacturer set on wiping us out. There's no wonder we're just a bit defensive.

Edit: and YOU, @Wyville , turns out to be part of the exact same army of undead audio salesmen, per @Steve999 's findings.

 

[Wyville]

Are you suggesting that claims made in Sound Science without any supporting data and/or evidence should go unquestioned?

The rest of head-FI operates under those parameters. This is the one subsection where members are allowed to ask for objective support - the same questions are banned on the rest of this site. That this one area bothers so many members is troubling to me - no one is required to post here, yet many visit and want to alter it.

If you think the bar is high here, try posting in Hydrogen Audio

What I am suggesting is that if this place wants to become a stimulating environment for high quality discussions that it should change its environment to become something that facilitates such discussions instead shooting them down.

It's interesting how they seem to always come in tag teams and immediately leap to defending each other. It's also interesting how the people who say that science doesn't know enough are the first ones to act as the judge of "good" and "bad" science.

I am not defending anyone, merely taking the opportunity to try and stimulate Sound Science forum members to reflect on the environment that has been created here. And please don't make assumptions about me. You do not know me.

 

[Wyville]

That's what it may look like, in a field that is "wide open".

The history of sound science is more like this:
Early 20th century: real scientists established the bounds of human hearing, with actual credible tests.
Late 20th century: one by one all these bounds are met or exceeded by the state-of-the-art, then by the not so SOTA, then by 50 dollar off-brand Walkmans.
Thereafter: desperate to sell new stuff for more money, the audio salesmen engage in ever-escalating FUD campaigns to discredit past research. They attempt to wipe real audio science off the face of the earth and replace it with pseudoscientific woo, with increasing levels of success.

What we have here is one of the last bastions of sanity in audio circles, besieged by well-funded attackers from almost every audio manufacturer set on wiping us out. There's no wonder we're just a bit defensive.

I am genuinely very sorry to read a post like this and rather speechless.

 

[bfreedma]

What I am suggesting is that if this place wants to become a stimulating environment for high quality discussions that it should change its environment to become something that facilitates such discussions instead shooting them down.

I am not defending anyone, merely taking the opportunity to try and stimulate Sound Science forum members to reflect on the environment that has been created here. And please don't make assumptions about me. You do not know me.

I’ve seen few examples here where posts are shot down prior to the poster being given the opportunity to present a case better than a purely subjective opinion. Once that opportunity is ignored and the subjective opinion doubled down on, many, myself included, feel insulted.

The recent discussion is a prototypical example. How many times can requests for any form of objective data be ignored and why is the problem with those asking for it?

 

[Joe Bloggs]

I am genuinely very sorry to read a post like this and rather speechless.

Sorry about what? Merely reproducing audio with high fidelity is simpler than you think. The state of the art today is on manipulating audio with ever higher degrees of sophistication.

But the HiFi salesmen would break everything back down to the stone ages so they can start over if they have their way.

It's actually been going like this in many other scientific fields lately.

Most people don't believe we actually ever went to the moon anymore.

Vaccines are getting de-invented.

The more set in stone the conclusions of climate science are to actual researchers in the field, the more discredited it is in the public eye.

The list goes on...