I agree. Forming an opinion based on one's experience and then insisting that others be equally impressed and convinced is highly uncivilized. It's a form of asocial behavior, and is never going to be met with enthusiasm.
But it cuts both ways, though. Forming an opinion based on cold hard measurable facts by extrapolating those facts into the sphere of human experience is equally anti-social. Suppose you build a new audio component, or accessory, and you can easily demonstrate by repeated measurements that this component/accessory introduces changes into the audio system. If you now start insisting that everyone must hear those changes because, hey, they're clearly measurable, you'll be guilty of the same kind of arrogant, self-important, anti-social bullying. mlsstl wrote: > To reuse the Peter Belt example, it is simply stupid to think that one > can publicly announce that frozen photos improve the sound quality of a > stereo and, once again, feel -entitled- for that statement to go > unchallenged. Again, I'm in full agreement. Any outlandish claims, such as Peter Belt's claims, cannot rightfully insist they'd be given mainstream status. So long as we're talking marginal stuff, that stuff remains on the margins, until such time when the overall socio-economical climate changes (for example, there was a time when 'the earth is round' argument was considered outlandish; today, 'the earth is flat' argument is considered outlandish). mlsstl wrote: > When you're that far outside of the boundaries of how sound is recorded, > played back, travels through air, is received by the ears and processed > by the auditory portion of the brain, I think a person should feel a a > bit stultified. The burden is on them to make a case that something > other than fevered imagination is at work. True. There actually is one unexplored, unmentionable aspect of the chain you've mentioned above -- it's the subjective mood. A completely unmeasurable factor, it has the power to affect how we see/hear things. It could be construed as being highly exploitative and opportunistic if someone were to claim to have the standardized solution for imparting the best possible mood into the subject, which is what Peter Belt appears to be saying. mlsstl wrote: > However, the people who throw out such ideas in audio are rarely > satisfied with their pet effect being a product of their own > imagination. They seem to desperately want confirmation, acceptance and > endorsement of their belief as "science". One doesn't have to read very > many audio forums for very long to find a consistent pattern along these > lines. Yes, it simply has to do with an inborn human propensity for sharing. People experience something that exhilarates them, and then they want to share that joy with others. What's wrong with that? Many people even secretly hope that others will agree and follow along and experience the same joy. The only nefarious thing in there is if they then want to trick someone and make them part with their hard earned cash. But nothing like that is ever occurring here, so I see no problem. mlsstl wrote: > So, tolerate? Sure - let do whatever makes them happy in the pursuit of > audio enjoyment. They just shouldn't expect confirmation and endorsement > as some sort of God-given right. Absolutely. But let's allow others the opportunity to share. Let's try and avoid personal attacks. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ magiccarpetride's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=37863 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=94418 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
