cliveb wrote: > As I read the response that you posted here, I was struck by the thought > that you seemed to be bending over backwards to try and avoid offense. > > Had it been me commenting on the CA article, it would have been > something more along the lines of "there is no rational explanation for > this drivel other than that you are clinically insane". But of course > that would be unlikely to get past moderation :-)
I think it's good to be gracious. :-) After years of arguments with audiophiles locally and debates with folks on various audiophile forums; often reaching ridiculous levels approaching religious wars, I figured there's no point continuing unless there was some way to elevate the discussion (measurements, experiments, surveys, etc...) Ultimately, I cannot deny a person of his "feeling" of "opinion", so the best I can do is appeal to (hopefully) his sense of logic and appreciation that audio (especially digital audio) is based on engineering and science rather than some kind of magic. Therefore there is truth to be found using appropriate empirical principles. And if truly some people refuse to even agree at this basic level, fruitful discussion is likely impossible. -"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan- Archimago's Musings: (archimago.blogspot.com) A 'more objective' audiophile blog. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Archimago's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2207 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=102632 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
