This isn't meant to start a fight, but it is important to on lookers. As a qualifier, I have my own audio forum where we report on audio issues as we empirically test them. It helps us short cut on theories and developing methods of listening. We have a wide range of systems and they are all over the world adding their experiences to the mix. Some are engineers, some are artist and others are audiophiles both new and old. One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
I have been around empirical testing labs since I was a kid, and one thing that is certain is, you can always tell if someone is talking without walking. Right now on this forum there are easily 20 threads going on where folks are talking theory and there is absolutely no doubt to any of us who have actually done the testing needed, that the guy talking has never done the actual empirical testing themselves. I've seen this happen with HEA reviewers and designers and a ton of hobbyist. My question is this, why?
You would think that this hobby would be about listening and experience, so why are there so many myths created and why, in this hobby in particular, do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks. It's not that hard to setup a real empirical testing ground, so why don't we see this happen?
I'm not asking for peoples credentials, and I'm not asking to be trolled, I'm simply asking why talk and not walk? In many ways HEA is on pause while the rest of audio innovation is moving forward. I'm also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we've all heard it been there done it. What I'm asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
I wonder what a dog-in-a-bone is, too. Where did you find it?
If you misread it and you are referring to prof’s "I have indeed been a dog-on-a-bone in this thread, I certainly admit that.", he may be willing to explain when he finds time. I can only speak for myself, but it seemed like a very clear metaphor with more than a bit of self-inflicting humor attached to it.
Hi, all. Here’s the cut and paste of the intro to Zen and the Art of Debunkery. Enjoy.
“What is “debunkery?” Essentially it is the attempt to debunk (invalidate) new fields of discovery by substituting scientistic rhetoric for scientific inquiry.
While informed skepticism is an integral part of the scientific method, professional debunkers — often called “kneejerk skeptics” — tend to be skeptics in name only, and to speak with little or no authority on the subject matter of which they are so passionately skeptical. At best, debunkers will occasionally expose other people’s errors; but for the most part they purvey their own brand of pseudoscience, fall prey to their own superstition and gullibility, and contribute little to the actual advancement of knowledge. As such, they well and truly represent the Right Wing of science.
To throw this reprobate behavior into bold — if somewhat comic — relief, I have composed a useful “how-to” guide for aspiring debunkers. This manual includes special sections devoted to debunking extraterrestrial intelligence, alternative healing methods, astrology and “free energy.” I spotlight these fields not because I necessarily support all related claims, but because they are among the most aggressively and thoughtlessly debunked subjects in the whole of modern history.
Many of the debunking strategies laid bare here have been adapted nearly verbatim from the classic works of history’s most remarkable debunkers. Though they often cross the threshold of absurdity under their own steam, I confess I have nudged a few across it myself for the sake of making a point.
As for the rest, their fallacious reasoning, fanatical bigotry, twisted logic and sheer goofiness will sound frustratingly familiar to those who have dared explore beneath oceans of denial and disingenuousness, and have attempted in good faith to report their observations.”
I have to thank you. Even you can make me learn about new things and I honestly appreciate it. Not making it up at all.
I looked up Wikipedia page for Marcello Truzzi who you quoted at some length about his views on skepticism or, what you seem to have a perservating interest in, pseudoskepticism.
The part about that skepticism topic was nicely written in an attempt to impress but otherwise boring and, in my view, sufficiently meaningless so I will not recommend it to others nor will I quote it in the future.
The part I would like to thank you for is that I learned the following:
"Truzzi was Keynote Speaker at the 1st annual National Roller Coaster Conference, "CoasterMania", held at Cedar Point Amusement Park, Sandusky, Ohio - 1978. On the subject of riding in the front vs riding in the back of a roller coaster, he said:..."
The very existence of a National Roller Coaster Conference "CoasterMania" is what I find interesting. I will surely mention it and quote above sentence in the future.
Thank you, I could not have made that without you.
Do you happen to know how they found him? It was a pre-Google time. How could you find a guy to speak at your roller coaster conference?
However, as I mentioned to you before, your references are often revealing.
"He asked if you knew the sonic difference between two capacitors. Your answer set the stage for where you wanted to go with this thread."
Not to go into validity and meaning of such questions and this whole thread, but I think that this thread had already developed by the time Michael Green asked prof this question. I am not taking sides, but it would not be fair to claim that whatever prof's answer to this question was (I do not remember it) was a major turn in this thread that brought it from meaningful discussion towards frustrated arguing.
I have indeed been a dog-on-a-bone in this thread, I certainly admit that.
However, the whole thing really touches issues I find of interest and importance - the role of empiricism, science and skepticism in high end audio, and the approach to discussing differences of opinion or debating the issues. Like I’ve said, it does no one any good to be dismissive of someone’s skepticism, to imply it is only a form of defective negativity, to ignore good questions and arguments, and only embrace those who believe exactly as we do. That’s why I bristled at the lack of honest interaction in the thread and have felt it important to identify and critique.
But I don’t plan on adding any more.
Unless...of course...other people show up and continue to insist on mischaracterizing my posts and arguments. ;-) .
(Though actually, even then, whatever. People will mischaracterize them if that's what they are after, no matter what I do. That's obvious at this point. But my views, arguments and clarifications are all there for anyone to make an honest assessment).
Why don’t you talk to Michael about music or his product or tuning.
I did. Remember?
I asked honest questions that he refused to answer.
As I said: I’m not trying to get you to change your opinion of the Michael you know. He may be a great fellow. But I certainly am trying to get across why this thread went to crap, and it started with the character of Michael’s original post. I know Michael’s followers think he can do no wrong...so yes, it’s a bit quixotic to think you will recognize this thread didn’t have the best efforts of MG.
Or better yet why don’t you post your thoughts on TuneLand.
Because I have seen that this would be useless - both Michael and his followers here have all shown that skeptical questions are not welcome, that they are seen as bad vibes and trolling. I’ve also seen someone else dismissed before from the Tuneland forum simply for asking skeptical questions, daring to bring up measurements, blind testing etc, so it doesn’t seem worth the time to go there unless I’m just going to embrace anything Michael presents with "geeze, thanks!."
Your posts are repeated ramblings at this point.
They are "repeated" because no Tuner answers them.
I’m hardly following him around the forum - this is the only MG thread I’ve ever entered.
But MG tuners keep showing up to defend him and while doing so, cast me and others as the bad guys. And since you came in and called out my (among others) posts as off-the-mark, even trolling, of course I’m going to respond and explain where you are wrong.
Why don't you talk to Michael about music or his product or tuning. Or better yet why don't you post your thoughts on TuneLand. On this thread it looks like you are obsessing over Mr. Green even stalking him. The Michael I know is someone different than you have painted a picture of. You've even been trying to convince me of changing my mind about him but sir that would be "fake". If you would have stated your case and moved on that would have been something to add to the mix of opinion. But you are being passive aggressive in trying to paint that someone else is. Your posts are repeated ramblings at this point. My opinion is you've barked up the wrong tree on a public forum.
Prof, when Michael is up on a forum somewhere in the home hobby or professional a post is made on TuneLand and his facebook page. No sirens needed.
Well, that is essentially a siren of the type I was thinking - it seemed that somehow Tuneland people are getting alerted elsewhere about this thread, as opposed to just "stumbling upon it" while perusing audiogon. And that is what you’ve just described: when Michael posts here he alerts his followers.
This serves as a good example of trolling by you.
And that serves as a good example of your misapplication of that term. My comment was not trolling:
It was an honest impression that Michael’s followers and friends were being alerted about this thread from outside this forum. Nothing - as per the definition of trolling - was meant to deceive, and my general impression was essentially vindicated by the information you just posted.
And MG most certainly did engage in your question. If you read MG’s response to you he asked a very straight forward question.
He asked a question to AVOID ANSWERING my question.
I was asking the question first, remember?
Here was my question (which I had to ask twice because he kept avoiding it):
PROF WROTE: "Can you tell us exactly what measurable performance parameters change when a cap is tied down with a tie wrap? And explain why one would expect those measurable changes would be audible, especially with the character you describe?
Can you supply any such measurements for us to see, so we don’t have to just take your word on it?"
Do you actually think those are unreasonable questions to ask, if someone is claiming there is an audible performance difference between a tied and an untied capacitor? I’d hope not!
Yet, instead of answering the question, Green wanted to turn the tables and ask me about the difference between two specific capacitors. That is NOT answering my questions and I’m sure you know it. He only sought a way to try and show me as inexperienced, and use that as an excuse to not answer those completely reasonable questions.
But be my guest - show me how the above questions were, in fact, answered by Michael.
Your answer set the stage for where you wanted to go with this thread.
Yes...I tried to keep Michael actually focused on giving some answers to explain the evidence for his claims, instead of his ignoring them and finding new ways to imply I’m a fake. How impertinent of me!
Michael was talking about people who want to try things instead of talking about them.
And do you think it is unreasonable to first ask the basis on why one would try something in the first place?
Do you just try anything anyone ever suggests? Or, if their suggestion doesn’t seem to make immediate sense to you, would you not ask follow up questions, asking for a better explanation and evidence?
Tell me: what exactly is wrong with that? Because that’s what I was doing with Michael’s claims about crowding components, tied capacitors etc, but he wouldn’t answer.
But Michael and his acolytes tend to imply that if you question the claims before running out and trying them, well, that’s just not right, it’s like a bad character trait and you aren’t playing by the rules they want people to play. "If you haven’t tried it; you are in no position to question it.’
And that is a type of b.s. that deserves to be called what it is.
Another thing I can tell you about Michael is he doesn’t like to do anger.
Yes I did notice he tended toward the passive-aggressive - sprinkling assertions and implied insults (e.g. implying questions like mine made me part of the problem, implying people who were skeptical are trolls oe negative nellies, etc), and doing the passive-aggressive "Oh, if you took THAT from what I said, that’s on you!"
Once again, as I’ve said many times: I am not arguing at all that Michael Green has nothing to offer. Far from it, his tunable speakers and some of his room tuning implementations are intriguing even to me. And I am not declaring that all his tweaks are fake and don’t work. All I’m doing is, when a claim seems ever more outside anything I’ve seen good evidence or explanation for - to ask questions about what type of evidence and methods of testing are being used to vet the ideas. And I’ve also been pointing out that starting a thread implying people are being fakes who don’t go along with Green’s claims and run out to try them, is not a good way to start a civil discussion with people who may not simply accept your claims on face value, and want some reasonable questions answered first.
Prof, when Michael is up on a forum somewhere in the home hobby or professional a post is made on TuneLand and his facebook page. No sirens needed. This serves as a good example of trolling by you. You've done nothing here but try to paint a false narrative of a man who has dedicated his life to helping others.
And MG most certainly did engage in your question. If you read MG's response to you he asked a very straight forward question. He asked if you knew the sonic difference between two capacitors. Your answer set the stage for where you wanted to go with this thread. Michael was talking about people who want to try things instead of talking about them. You have been pressing to talk instead of walk. That's fairly clear to me. Plus your temper gets the best of you and others have asked you to not take things so personally. Another thing I can tell you about Michael is he doesn't like to do anger.
It’s odd to read this thread that is mostly about Michael’s character instead of the OP.
You seem to have missed that Michael’s OP was an attack on the character of others - calling them out as "fakes." (And he continued to imply people on this thread - e.g. me - are faking it).
Why is your tolerance so high when Michael does this, and so low if anyone challenges Michael to back up his arguments, I wonder?
No one is chasing MG around on the forum attacking his character (I notice he managed to recently turn a speaker thread into yet another bunch of self-promotion...)
But since THIS thread is one started by MG, and he did not behave very well to people who didn’t just accept his claims, then it’s not a surprise that his posts have been scrutinized for their character.
I don’t doubt at all that any number of people can report wonderful interactions with MG. I’m sure - if you he sees you as open to conversion - he can be a great guy. But of course it’s easy to be nice to people who are thanking you for your help and pearl’s of wisdom.
It’s another test of character, for anyone not just MG, to be able to discuss differences of opinion in an intellectually honest manner and not dismiss anyone voicing disagreement or skepticism as "negative" people or trolls.
Which Michael continually implied (and sometime explicitly).
I see and listen with Michael almost every day. We live 5 doors away from each other.
And I’m sure you get along great. But none of that speaks to MG’s actual posts in this thread, which were evasive, dismissive if not outright insulting.
(written to uberwaltz)
There aren’t any questions here Mr. Green avoided. He didn’t give the answers Prof or whomever wanted
Holy cow. I asked for clarifications, and asked specific questions. Michael Green admitted he wasn’t even answering them, didn’t even feel it incumbent on him to do so at all. If you asked me specific questions and I respond with the equivalent of "I'm not going to answer your questions, you don’t get it, and btw you exemplify the problem" you wouldn’t accept my characterization "well, I just didn’t give the answers you wanted." No, that’s disingenuous - as if to put the onus on you, like YOU are in the wrong to not accept those as answers. The fact is I just wouldn’t be answering the questions AT ALL. Michael was not answering my questions AT ALL. Either early on, or when I asked about capacitors. Everyone noticed. Why don’t you?
You are taking pages right out of Michael’s playbook here. Spin something in a disingenuous manner - always imply blame to the respondent.
Prof I have indeed read this whole thread and you and kosst ARE trolling MG. You can twist and turn as much as you wish but you ARE INDEED TROLLING Mr. Green.
Here is what your post shares in common with Mr. Green’s posts: You can cast such aspersions, but you can’t - don’t even bother - to back it up. Calling people names like "troll" without actually showing how their arguments - what they have actually written - deserves that name, is rather undignified. (Whereas I only applied that term to Michael’s post insofar as I showed exactly why the *content* of his post justified that term).
Do you care to back up your name-calling and actually show how my questions to Michael was "trolling?" Point to any argument I’ve made here to be unreasonable?
It would only be intellectually honest to do so, don’t you think?
Or are you set in following MG’s example of just brushing people off with disparaging comments, rather than engaging their questions and arguments?
You said that you believe MG failed in every aspect of managing this thread. Michael's not an audiogon mod and btw the Mods have done great on this thread. There aren't any questions here Mr. Green avoided. He didn't give the answers Prof or whomever wanted so some of you decided to judge MG based on this. That's not being objective.
I've been wanting to post but there was a glitch in the system that Audiogon promptly fixed. It's odd to read this thread that is mostly about Michael's character instead of the OP. I'll give my take about Michael's character that I have seen first hand. When he moved from the outer part of Vegas to the heart of the strip it was easy to pick up on what Michael Green is about. When leaving the old neighborhood MG made sure those who had an interest in Michael's sound he gave a home system to, free. The movers also got systems, free. This was on top of his generous pay. Even while Michael was moving into our community, he was asking other tenants if they had systems. He gave his neighbors systems, free.
Michael Green is about sharing music and making life enjoyable for the people he comes in contact with. Painting MG in any other light is false. I see and listen with Michael almost every day. We live 5 doors away from each other. Prof and kosst you are so far off base with your posts I'm surprised you are even on this thread. Prof I have indeed read this whole thread and you and kosst ARE trolling MG. You can twist and turn as much as you wish but you ARE INDEED TROLLING Mr. Green.
It’s one thing to look for a way out when your bluff has been called.
But to do it on the pretence that someone is calling you names?
Geoffkait...complaining about anyone name-calling?
That is a priceless ploy coming from you. I admire the chutzpah. Though you may have a class action lawsuit from Audiogon members coming at you, for damage done to their collective Irony Meters ;-)
(And LOL at trying to find "name calling" in my last two posts.)
Anyway, buh-bye! I’ve spent more time than I should have battling your imagination.
Whoa! Hey, more name calling. You don’t get it. Your posts are excellent examples of pretzel 🥨 logic of the kind used by pseudo skeptics. This conversation can serve no purpose any more.
I may sometimes comment on someone's posting style - especially if they are being disingenuous. But I *do not* use comments on someone’s posting style to *avoid* people’s questions or arguments. I directly address them (as I did yet again when you brought forth your pseudo skeptic defintion and tried to pin it on me).
Whereas you, taking the baton from MG, are carrying on the tradition of evasion when you can’t actually reply to the actual argument or stance someone has actually presented.
Clearly you aren’t going to acknowledge you were so obviously wrong.
Tiniest bit of integrity? See, that’s what I am referring to. That’s a personal attack. That’s a pseudo skeptics ploy to try and save face when called a pseudo skeptic. It’s similar to one of your first posts, calling Michael a jerk in so many words. Those are fake arguments. They are not (rpt not) arguments a real skeptic uses. Do you want me to draw you a picture?
prof So geoff’s hand was finally forced to show his"pseudo skeptic" card that he kept threatening me and others with - throwing around that label as if it suited, or showed any problem with, my arguments.
>>> What? Are you crazy? I wasn’t threatening anyone. I am adept at recognizing earnest and dedicated followers of pseudo skepticism. Call it radar. If you don’t like the label that’s what is known as tough gazongie. Of course pseudo skeptics don’t like being labeled. I’m just keeping the playing field level. Besides, this was the second time I posted the long winded definition of pseudo skeptic. Try to keep up with the discussion, guys. Let the Inquisition proceed! Off with their heads!
As you can see Geoff’s attempt to critique that portion of my post (mentioning "credentials") is the usual attempt to avoid the actual substance of the point made. He just ignores the point that an engineer wouldn’t typically evade answering pertinent engineering questions about his own claims. In fact, I can not remember - ever, in an online discussion or elsewhere - an engineer or someone with expert credentials in some audio field so deliberately evading pertinent questions. Usually they are only too happy to explain more and make their case.
Whether I’m an engineer or not - and I’m not - has nothing to do with my observation about MG avoiding questions, so of course I wasn’t making it some "let’s compare credentials" statement. MG may have the best credentials I’ve ever seen and that would be irrelevant to the fact he was evading questions. So Geoff is as usual snapping at air - there was zero of pertinence to the substance of my post.
Michael Green used very move in the book to avoid answering my posts. When he asked me to tell him about the different sound between two capacitors - it was an obvious attempt to distract from answering my questions about the evidence for his claims concerning capacitors and tie wraps. Anyone paying attention could easily infer what his motivation was: "I’m going to bring up two very specific capacitors, and it will show that prof hasn’t experience with those capacitors, therefore it will leave the impression that prof hasn’t the experience I, Michael Green, have, which will leave the impression prof has no leg on which to stand in being a skeptic on these issues. It will show prof is ’talking but not walking."
The post utterly wreaked of that obvious motivation.
But I didn’t give him an answer that would warrant that conclusion at all.
I haven’t played with those capacitors so I wouldn’t be making a claim either way - whether or how they sound different and in what applications. So I have no burden of proof. But if Michael claims they sound different, I would like to see on what evidence he is making the claim.
As there is NOTHING Michael could actually impugn about my stance in that reply, he could not - as with every other post of mine - honestly interact with it to find fault.
So instead he simply thanked me for answering. Did he ever explain the reason for the question? (I asked...but he wouldn’t say...spelling it out would spell out too vividly the fallacy and evasive tactic he was using).
But by just thanking me for my answer, he would leave in the air the impression - for anyone impressionable enough - that he’d just made a point.
As I said; a textbook intellectually dishonest interaction.
But it does seem that a number of people noticed, and didn’t fall for it.
Like I said: MG may have some truly helpful, interesting and efficacious techniques to share. It’s just a shame to cloud it with this type of behaviour and I hope future interactions are more positive.
Whereas with Geoff...well...he’s the forum equivalent of the neighbourhood dog who barks at everyone who passes by. You get used to the noise...”
Maybe tis best to file that whole jibber jabber under Whatever. A whole lotta nuthin’. A nothing burger as it were. 🍔
uberwaltz, Sounds great! But please remember: I will not take your opinion on this movie as reliable unless you your assessment was made in the context of proper methodological controls, including a control group. Otherwise, have fun! :-)
Prof Seriously I believe MG failed in every aspect of managing this thread. Maybe he did not take into account that his target audience here are not the same as those who flock to his site. After all they chose to go there and were more captive and easily seduced. Once he found the hard sell here was not going to fly without some evidence and supporting facts he became lost. Just handled very badly imho
As you can see Geoff’s attempt to critique that portion of my post (mentioning "credentials") is the usual attempt to avoid the actual substance of the point made. He just ignores the point that an engineer wouldn’t typically evade answering pertinent engineering questions about his own claims. In fact, I can not remember - ever, in an online discussion or elsewhere - an engineer or someone with expert credentials in some audio field so deliberately evading pertinent questions. Usually they are only too happy to explain more and make their case.
Whether I’m an engineer or not - and I’m not - has nothing to do with my observation about MG avoiding questions, so of course I wasn’t making it some "let’s compare credentials" statement. MG may have the best credentials I’ve ever seen and that would be irrelevant to the fact he was evading questions. So Geoff is as usual snapping at air - there was zero of pertinence to the substance of my post.
Michael Green used very move in the book to avoid answering my posts. When he asked me to tell him about the different sound between two capacitors - it was an obvious attempt to distract from answering my questions about the evidence for his claims concerning capacitors and tie wraps. Anyone paying attention could easily infer what his motivation was: "I’m going to bring up two very specific capacitors, and it will show that prof hasn’t experience with those capacitors, therefore it will leave the impression that prof hasn’t the experience I, Michael Green, have, which will leave the impression prof has no leg on which to stand in being a skeptic on these issues. It will show prof is ’talking but not walking."
The post utterly wreaked of that obvious motivation.
But I didn’t give him an answer that would warrant that conclusion at all.
I haven’t played with those capacitors so I wouldn’t be making a claim either way - whether or how they sound different and in what applications. So I have no burden of proof. But if Michael claims they sound different, I would like to see on what evidence he is making the claim.
As there is NOTHING Michael could actually impugn about my stance in that reply, he could not - as with every other post of mine - honestly interact with it to find fault.
So instead he simply thanked me for answering. Did he ever explain the reason for the question? (I asked...but he wouldn’t say...spelling it out would spell out too vividly the fallacy and evasive tactic he was using).
But by just thanking me for my answer, he would leave in the air the impression - for anyone impressionable enough - that he’d just made a point.
As I said; a textbook intellectually dishonest interaction.
But it does seem that a number of people noticed, and didn’t fall for it.
Like I said: MG may have some truly helpful, interesting and efficacious techniques to share. It’s just a shame to cloud it with this type of behaviour and I hope future interactions are more positive.
Whereas with Geoff...well...he’s the forum equivalent of the neighbourhood dog who barks at everyone who passes by. You get used to the noise...
So geoff’s hand was finally forced to show his"pseudo skeptic" card that he kept threatening me and others with - throwing around that label as if it suited, or showed any problem with, my arguments.
Of course, if anyone reads the "definition" of pseudo skeptic he can see that my arguments actually fit right in with the definition of a "True" skeptic:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual.
And that’s what I’ve done: refrained from making any absolute claims that a tweak doesn’t work, but instead have asked for the evidence.
My reply to glupson summarizing my position, on this very page, falls right in line with the above concept of "True skepticism." You can see the caution and tentative nature of what I myself would claim, and how I apply that same caution and "provisional" conclusions to other people’s claims - scaling my confidence with the nature of the claim and the quality of the evidence.
And everything I’ve written has been careful to stay within those bounds.Never have I said "X tweak CAN NOT make a difference." Instead, I have simply asked for the evidence. And where appropriate, explained why I have some grounds for skepticism.
People who think in a blinkered biased fashion often only see an argument for skepticism as "A dogmatic denial of the claim" when in fact, of course, it is not at all. It is simply giving a reason why you are asking for better evidence than has been provided (e.g. if you make a claim that either does not seem to make technical sense, or that goes against some of my and other people’s own experience, these are reasons to withhold belief and ask for better evidence than someone’s "say so."). To express skepticism isn’t to say "Your claim is false" but to point out "you have not provided sufficient evidence for me to accept that claim, for these reasons..."
But you can’t really argue this to someone absolutely set on one way of thinking, or whose claims are threatened by "True Skepticism."
And I wouldn’t expect geoff to "get it" if after all this time it hasn’t sunk in. But geoff’s never ending stream of gaffs can sometimes be handy to point out various fallacies and bad arguments, so we have him to thank for that ;-)
thecarpathian @ geoff- Oh, I read it just fine. But, just in case you feel my reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff, be so kind as to direct me to where in the above post did the prof offer up his credentials if MG did the same. You must have read it in there, because that’s the entire premise of your response to it.
>>>>No, actually that wasn’t my premise. My presume was that credentials don’t matter. My comment I’ll show you mine if you show me yours was a joke. Obviously I already realize prof doesn’t have the (engineering) credentials he insuinuating Michael doesn’t have. Follow?
thecarpathian But, then you explain that the point of your remark is that credentials are irrelevant. The ability and experience that make someone suitable for a particular job is irrelevant??! Wow. Care to explain, or mock, or insult, that one away?
>>>>>Credentials are irrelevant because someone with credentials doesn’t automatically win the argument. Also, someone with better credentials than someone else doesn’t automatically win the argument. Even a PhD in blah blah blah cannot claim he wins all the arguments even when the subject is his specialty, blah blah blah. Capish?
Experience does NOT equal credentials, at least how prof was using the term credentials. In terms of experience obviously Michael has a boatload. That’s why one often sees engineering job listings with the caveat, “x years of experience can be substituted for y degree” Experience -or the lack thereof - is kind of what actually what Michael was deriding when he used the word fake. Follow?
CD318. Just one very recent example of a "tweak" as you call it in my system.
Used Wireworld eclipse 6 xlr interconnects from my phono stage to my integrated and it sounded awful, just thin, grating and lifeless compared to the single ended RCA interconnect of Nordost Red Dawn I had been using, and Nordost have a rep for being thin sounding so go figure. It was that bad I was convinced the cables were faulty or the xlr inputs/outputs were. Nope it was just the timbre of that cable did not match my system. Swapped the Wireworld for a cheap pair of Audioquest and the sq was worlds apart even though the RCA Nordost still sound a little better to my ears. But according to some this should never have happened? Interconnects are inconsequential tweaks? I KNOW that is not the case!
@ geoff- Oh, I read it just fine. But, just in case you feel my reading comprehension isn’t up to snuff, be so kind as to direct me to where in the above post did the prof offer up his credentials if MG did the same. You must have read it in there, because that’s the entire premise of your response to it. But, then you explain that the point of your remark is that credentials are irrelevant. The ability and experience that make someone suitable for a particular job is irrelevant??! Wow. Care to explain, or mock, or insult, that one away?
A good question to ask before we get embroiled in the highly contentious business of home experimentation might be, 'What, if anything other than a monumental waste of money and time has the entire history of tweaking achieved?' Walk the walk indeed.
Apart from taking care in buying and careful setting up, is there anything more we the consumers need to concern ourselves with? Interconnects (?), loudspeaker cables (??), contact enhancers (??), mains conditioners, magic pens (???), fuses (?????), cable supports (??????) etc.
Serious, highly qualified and experienced engineers, never mind the proverbial man on the street would laugh at some of the lunacy perpetuated in the pursuit of good sound.
Surely it's the job of the designer to research and develop the product in preparation to delivering it to the market. It's a gross conceit to believe that we can do a better job than the designer and then get angry when people disagree with us!
Instead we might be best advised to first learn exactly what we are looking for and only then to seek it out by listening. Know thyself my friend.
No, actually he doubted Michael’s engineering credentials, as if credentials mean something. Can’t you read? Here is the original post, try again. You’re the one twisting his comments to be something innocent. But the point is that credentials are irrelevant. I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
prof I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?
@geoffkait , Prof states- "I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials..." and you twist that into some kind of desperate ploy of someone whom is grasping at straws (or is it strawmen?) The dying last gasp of a pseudo skeptic. As to your rebuttal of his quote, he did nothing of the sort. He simply stated he did not know what MG's engineering credentials are. I don’t recall anywhere on this thread where prof demanded to see MG’s engineering credentials, nor did the prof offer up any engineering credentials of his own. Although I did not go back and reread all rebuttals, I am fully prepared to admit I am incorrect if presented with evidence to the contrary.
Michaelgreenaudio: Yes there are recordings where the highs and lows have been rolled off, thus some would say it’s a bad recording by being poorly produced, engineered etc. I don’t care how your system or room is tuned,you can’t get back something that was never there to begin with. Classical, some rock, a lot of Country and most Jazz recordings are very well produced. I think “bad recordings” are due to a variety of reasons. The record companies just want to get the product out there to make the money and with a lot of todays younger listeners, they think they’re listening to their iPods, etc, so why put out a very well produced recording, if most listeners of that genre don’t have the equipment to hear the difference. This goes back for decades-not just recently. Some artists demand or do the productions themselves, to insure the sound is quality. Kudos to them.
Nothing! I've yet to hear any headphone that sounds more vivid, more alive in the mids. If ever a product deserved it's classic status it's the Portal Pro's.
The discontinued Jays v-Jays were also brilliant in a similar way.
prof I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?
>>>>>>Engineering credentials? Whoa! Oh, no! It’s come down to the old I’ll show you mine if you show me yours argument. Another favorite pseudo skeptic ploy. That usually pops up when the combatant has completely run out of ammo. Attack the arguer not the argument. Smooth!
glupson Does anyone know what "pseudo skeptic" means?
>>>>>Yes, someone does. 🙄
“Pseudo-skepticism (or pseudoscepticism) is a philosophical or scientific position which appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but which in reality fails to be so.
In 1987, Marcello Truzzi revived the term specifically for arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. He argued that scientific skepticism is agnostic to new ideas, making no claims about them but waiting for them to satisfy a burden of proof before granting them validity. Pseudoskepticism, by contrast, involves "negative hypotheses"—theoretical assertions that some belief, theory, or claim is factually wrong—without satisfying the burden of proof that such negative theoretical assertions would require.[5][6][7][8]
In 1987, while working as a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar (which he founded): In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis—saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact—he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof...
Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence. Absolute truth, like absolute justice, is seldom obtainable. We can only do our best to approximate them. — Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]”
Prof hits the nail on the head. If he is legit, and I'm skeptical given the arsonist's-best-friend power strip, he sure sells his warez like a snake oil salesman.
It’s nice to hear you are really happy with MG speakers. I’d love to hear a pair as they sound really interesting.
My take on this thread is that there was a real engineer on this forum and some of you did everything in your power to chase him away.
No, simply to get some straight answers to questions that shouldn’t have been that hard.
Michael was encouraging members here to do their homework before speaking about topics that effect other listeners decisions.
1. Some of us have done our own homework, and bring some of that experience to Michael’s claims.
2. Is it not part of doing homework, and simply thinking critically, to ask Michael about the basis for some of his claims? That’s what some of us, like myself, were doing. When the claim arose that untying capacitors "freed" the sound, I was simply asking for the explanations for this, and how it was tested. Isn’t that reasonable? If I tell you that planting pennies in your garden will make your flowers grow faster, do you run out and to this first thing - especially when the concept doesn’t even make sense to you?
Or would you first want to ask "what’s the basis for that claim? How do pennies cause flowers to grow faster and how did you test that idea?"
Before we spend time on an activity, doesn’t it make sense to first determine whether it seems worth one’s time?
Some of you appeared to get upset because Michael is a straight shooter and doesn’t waste time or allow his time to be wasted.
I presume you didn’t read a lot of the thread then?
The main problem is that Michael did NOT appear to be a straight shooter in this thread. He was very evasive - and for seemingly no good reason. That’s what numerous people have commented on.
I don’t know Michael’s engineering credentials, but I personally haven’t seen an engineer refuse to answer some of the basic and obvious engineering questions I was asking (e.g. what measured parameters change between a tied cap and an untied cap?)
I always thought that was a virtue, but not here.
Agree 100 percent. That’s why it was so odd to see MG brush off so many questions and calls for clarification.
I do hope that his future threads are more engaging even with those people who may have some questions about his claims and methods. Of course, if he wants to stay strictly preaching to the choir, he has his own forum.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
