Hookay...
It seems my very first reply to you in this thread remains as pertinent as ever.
Not doing the hobby is when someone speaks as if they have some knowledge on something yet they personally have never done it.
But you are casting a wide, disparaging net there. It’s one thing to say of a single subject being discussed "you haven’t personal experience with X." It’s another to cast this as "the hobby." People can be doing high end audio, doing "the hobby" just as much as you are, yet disagree on a subject. Someone could say "Well, Michael, I don’t put tuned wood blocks under my cables because I’m not convinced by your reasoning that it is efficacious." But simply voicing skepticism is NOT tantamount to "not doing the HOBBY." That person can, it should be obvious, still be quite engaged in the hobby of high end audio and their own system.
But your way with words doesn’t even allow for the idea that two audiophiles can be in "the hobby," yet disagree on some specific subject. This is the type of careless way with wording that, yet again, is problematic for good discourse.
Faking it is the same thing. They will make comments about a subject and yet have never really explored it.
Same problem here that I highlighted in my first post to you.
First...commenting on a proposed tweak (or whatever) IS a way of exploring it. If you suggest a tweak, and I ask "How does that work, exactly, and on what evidence are you basing this?" then that IS part of exploring the subject. A tweak first has to make some sense to someone in order to motivate putting money...or just time and effort...in to it.
Further, there are often times when someone can reasonably comment on a claim that they have not personally experimented with. I don’t have to have gone to the moon personally to argue it’s unreasonable to claim it’s made of cheese, and I don’t have to have tried using homeopathy to point to very good reasons that the claim is based on bunk. Quite a number of high end audio tweaks fall into a similar category, where one can point out the claims are suspect in nature, if not technically, and the vetting process unreliable.
So one way to be more clear on where you stand is to answer: Would YOU put me in the category of "not doing the hobby" or being a Faker?
Answering this would go a long way to clarifying your stance, and also showing how reasonable it is or not. (Your first reply to me suggested you put me in the "not doing/faking it" camp...but I’m looking for clarification).
The reason I asked you if you knew the difference between those two caps is so I could see how experienced you were with the sonic differences between audio pieces.
Again...you seem to extrapolate from isolated examples to imply an unjustified wider conclusion.
That I haven’t experience comparing those caps does not equate to my not being experienced "with the sonic differences between audio pieces." I’ve been in to high end audio, heavily, since the early 1990’s, and have been comparing audio devices with great fervor for decades.
So who are you to try to extrapolate from some simple capacitor example that this disqualifies me from be worthy of discussing with you audio differences?
Prof some people swear they can’t hear the differences between caps. That to me is a disqualifier for me to want to talk to them about the sound differences.
I didn’t make any such claim that they don’t sound different, right? But you went on to ignore my reply with just "thank you" and no reasoning or clarification beyond that.
Same goes for the ties snipped from the caps.
I haven’t declared that snipped caps don’t sound different. I’ve given reasons why I don’t just accept the claim at face value, and asked for more details explaining the purported phenomenon. That’s reasonable isn’t it? You see that’s different from declaring they don’t make a difference, right? And yet everything you write keeps implying my concerns are just trolling, and are not serious questions, and even though I keep explaining "I’m not saying it’s impossible" over and over, your replies keep referring to people who say "it’s impossible." I’ve simply been asking for you to interact with what I actually say, vs what seems to be some other version you have in your head that you keep responding to.
Fact is, the change did take place and Jay and others here who have gone and done this experiment while this thread was going on heard the difference and reported it to me. I’ve taken my time responding to you because I wanted to heard from folks who actually "Did" the experiment.
So this is a problem I keep pointing toward. Your OP made quite a deal about being empirical, and you referenced being scientific. ("why....do people claim they know something without ever experimenting or being part of a team of empirical science folks.")
But what I’ve seen from you isn’t very scientific at all. I’ve been asking the very questions someone thinking scientifically would ask:
What is your explanation, what makes your hypothesis plausible as a starting point for investigation. Have you measurable results to show?
And then, have you tested your hypothesis that the results are actually audible in ways that account for the relevant variables (e.g. bias, human imagination, etc)?
See there is a whole world of difference between simply "empirical experience" and being scientific. Flat earthers are basing their beliefs on their experience. But they aren’t being scientific.
If you were familiar with scientific empiricism, you’d recognize my questions as pertinent and in fact welcome them - scientists know they gain strength in their hypotheses insofar as they can stand up to skeptical scrutiny.
But you keep reacting like skepticism is a bad thing. More like it’s a buzz-kill when you just want to discuss your claims, and only talk of positive results unchallenged. Skepticism is just, apparently, a way to troll you.
Such an attitude is much more aligned with pseudo-science, or new age magical thinking or faith, rather than empirical rigor. So you should be able to see the grounds for skepticism here.
If you feel it’s fair to call people out for not "walking the walk" isn’t it fair to call you out for giving lip-service to science and empiricism, while not "walking the walk" by actually taking scientific rigor seriously in your methods, and in your responses?
Where the talk would come in is all these posts on this thread meant to derail or be a distraction. I would call all those with the intent to derail, troll or just old farts needing attention "fakes".
This just sounds like someone who won’t put up with any challenge to his claims.
Michael, please look again at your OP.
You did not make a thread about your tuning methods.
You made a thread specifically calling out some group of people for being fakes in this hobby. Not just that; people you claim are part of this forum. That’s what your entire OP is concerned with, from thread title to the last challenge to these people "why fake it?"
Did you honestly think you could just devote a thread to disparaging some group of people...and not have anyone challenge you on your claim? Like you can just gripe all you want about some subsection of people in this hobby and you expect only pats on the back and no pushback? Surely you can’t be that naive. And you even started with the understanding you would be raising hay by saying "you didn’t want to start a fight." But again, that’s like saying "I don’t want to cause any ill will - but some of you are fakes. Just don’t challenge me on that."
Numerous people have pointed out this problem in your OP, and in your follow up posts, so I don’t know why you refuse to listen to any criticism and keep blowing it all off, assuming the only reason anyone could pushback is if they are fakers or trolls.
Far from "de-railing" from the topic, I’ve been in fact KEEPING this thread on topic by asking you to back up and clarify the various claims in your OP. Trying to see whether I, or anyone else at all here, warrants your disparaging remarks. And probing your claims on empirical testing and it’s implications.
It seems you will only countenance on-topic remarks IF they support your claim and pat you on the back for calling out these purported fakes. But if someone challenges your claim...well they are of course the fakes and trolls you referred to. A perfectly circular type of response, more suited to religion than to someone truly empirically open or scientific.
For me this is a successful thread because listeners are "doing".
Which apparently means "doing your tuning stuff" and that’s "the hobby."
This smacks of self-important elitism, evangelism, not of egalitarian respect for other people to have their own approach.
I’m "doing" stuff all the time in the audio hobby. And I’d suggest literally everyone on and probably reading this thread is "doing" as well. But your stance continually suggests someone not doing your thing, or who voices any skepticism, isn’t "doing the hobby" or isn’t being empirically consistent, or is a faker or troll.
And that’s...to put it more politely than it deserves....not true or reasonable.
I didn’t come on this thread to "derail it" but rather appeal to you to clarify and substantiate your claims, and to helpfully suggest - being explicit that I was not accusing you of being malicious! - that creating a thread to disparage unnamed people was likely to be problematic.
And...it was. (And it’s not just me...many others have been trying to tell you this).
