Have we lost civility and respect on Audio forums?


I think we have.  I have seen many discussion on audio forums and how nasty they can become when you have people disagreeing. Seems like there are a lot more know it alls now. I been in 20 years and I can still learn.  But I also know I know quite a bit. Like cables can enhance the sound and higher end well designed gear can truly be ear candy special.  Is this just on audio forums or the internet period. 

calvinj

“ Dr. Choueiri the last genius in musical acoustic taught after many others psychoacoustics dont explain even the way we identify sound qualities... ( scottwheel will not contradict me about Choueiri he own the BACCH filters) 😊”


that’s not true at all. Edgar is one of the top researchers in spatial perception. He can tell you how in great detail how we identify sound qualities. He has conducted many controlled listening tests to clearly identify these things. Everything he would tell you is based in science, a lot of it his own research. I have had these conversations with him. 

“ Dr. Choueiri the last genius in musical acoustic taught after many others psychoacoustics dont explain even the way we identify sound qualities... ( scottwheel will not contradict me about Choueiri he own the BACCH filters) 😊”


that’s not true at all. Edgar is one of the top researchers in spatial perception. He can tell you how in great detail how we identify sound qualities. He has conducted many controlled listening tests to clearly identify these things. Everything he would tell you is based in science, a lot of it his own research. I have had these conversations with him.

 
 
 
It escape your criticism that i spoke about OTHER qualities than the spatial one Choueiri explained very well ( these spatial qualities we loose by the crosstalk effect in the way stereo work). I spoke about these qualities which were spoken about in the psycho-acoustic article i send to your intention and did not read ...😊You are too busy patronizing primitive audiophiles ....
 
For example these qualities by which we perceived any information ABOUT THE INTERNAL STATE of any vibrating source of sound...Be it the dimensions of a set of holes in a wooden tubes and the number of holes or a leaf sound difference between the lips or the inimitable meaningfuls inflexions of your mother voices communicating very complex set of information or the very detailed meanings of a stranger voice heard for the first time and read instantly ... Do you think we know perfectly how the brain extracted these qualities information complex meanings by reading a set of Fourier maps of the sound ? 😁
 
A fruit is ripe or not, if we tap it we feel it because we recognize it by qualitative synesthesical association... An empty space is localized this way by tapping in a tunnel...
 
The scale of tones meanings and recognition in relation to pitch is a set of qualities that poses many theoretical problems in psycho-acoustics even deep mathematical one...
 
Have you read the article of a psycho-acoustician i posted for your comment above before jumping on one of my sentence and misreadeading it ...All sound qualities are not spatial qualities of sounds...You get it ?
 
 
 
 
 
 
By the way i can as you just did but in a more rightfully way examine the error you comitted conflating high technical measuring precision with CONCEPTS and understanding in science ... For sure high precision in measure is related to theoretical understanding but are not the same at all ...The epycycles of Ptolemaus were measured way more precisely than the poor Copernic gross circular heliocentric orbits by the way ... Do you get the point ?
 
A set of concepts is not always a set of measures...it is the same for a set of perceptions which is always anyway a set of implicit or explicit concepts called also by psychologist "biases"...Untrained and /or deceptive biases and/or thruthful biases , as well as trained and/or deceptive biases and /or truthfull biases ...
 
"Hopefully " as you said you do not confuse measures and theory because they can be well correlated or not so well ...The discrepencies could be explained by a new concept, a new perception and a new theory or not ...
 
How many hearing theories do you think exist now ?
 
"Hopefully" you know that many opposing and complementary one exist, because hearing is as many other things , as qualia perception,  are not understood well at all ...
In the article above the psycho-acoustician spoke about auditory scenes analysis which is one of these theories ...
 
"Hopefully" for us you are not a techno-cultist masquarading as scientist as " Dr." Bill Gates or are you ? 😊
 
Hopefully you understand I didn’t make any claims that special relativity *explains* anything in audio. Hopefully you understand that I was pointing out the degree of precision needed to process and transmit real time compensation as an example of the depth of understanding we have of signal processing and transmission

I can’t make heads or tails of most of what you write. I have yet to make it all the way through any of your posts. Last thing I am going to do is try to go through every word, decipher them and respond point by point. I don’t need your analysis of what Edgar says about audio. I just talk to him directly. 

The fact that you spoke directly to Einstein does not means that Einstein had solved or you had solved all problem in physics...😊

my point is simple :

Hearing is not well understood in spite of hundred years of research...

Then invocating science in the singular mode as techno cultist did to direspectfully disqualified any non measurable subjective perception is not polite nor scientific ...

The fact that any buyer of the BACCH system as you are one can speak directly to Choueiri because he help them does not means anything in this discussion ...

And by the way i never gave an "analysis" of Choueiri theory only a simple description in few words and i only suggested to people to read him...

You had the tendencies to misread and twisted quotes and using authoritative name or fact out of the context to assure your simplistic claim about audiophiles as being deluded and lost because they trust rightfully or wrongfully their ears ...

As i already said, i am not a subjectivist nor an objectivist audiophile ... Your are clearly an objectivist ,...

Why claiming more than one time you own opinion and disclaim as illusion any other subjective perception even a wrong one ?

Do you not think it is not a bit provocative ?

It is like going on ASR forum and asking them to trust their ears ...😁It will be dismiss as idiotic beliefs if not substantiated by a set of measures ... Do you get it ?

I suggested to you in the beginning more than a week ago instead of dismissing cables perception or anything of this kind to spoke about Choueiri precisely because it could have been more constructive and useful here than systematically dismiss others subjective and/ or objective experience or purchases IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE ...

Do you get my point ?

Forums are social meeting points, not tribune to impose truths especially when there is no universal accepted theory of hearing in spite of our powerful technology ..

I dont give a damn about cables by the way , in my experience they made small differences compared to acoustic and other mechanical and electrical factors ... And i dont came here to put the shame on the head of those who had experienced otherwise with other gear, other room , other brain/ears and other histories... We can make clear our opinion and goes about more serious matter as i suggested to you a couple of time (Choueiri for example ) ... Then other audiophiles no more hurted by your dogmatic attitude would have listen to you ...

Do you get it ?

 

 

I don’t need your analysis of what Edgar says about audio. I just talk to him directly.

Perhaps i am absolutely a confused mind and you cannot made head and tails for this reason...😁

Perhaps i am more nuanced and more complex than your simplistic appeal to "science" and nothing else ...😊

Like you i am also provocative in a way , i plead guilty of charge ... But here i defend the right of people to express their subjective hearing experiences without blind test and in spite of your kind of science ... It is a forum of audio hobbyist ...not a circle of audio engineers all educated in the same mold ... It is why it would have been more useful to make them curious about Choueiri discoveries  as i suggested after your first three posts here than learning that they are deluded about their cables choices  in the name of science...✝

 

 

Do you get it ?

 

I can’t make heads or tails of most of what you write