@michaelgreenaudio,
I have to echo what someone else wrote: your OP left me wondering what you are actually talking about, and most subsequent posts weren’t too enlightening (aside from going into some detail about the nature of recordings...).
If I may: I think your intent was good, but your OP falls into the trap of setting off some ill will, even if inadvertently.
I get if you find you have a problem with some posters on the site. But imagine this scenario:
You walk into a big party thrown by Stereophile, audiophiles left and right, and you get on the microphone and announce
"Now, I don’t want to name names or anything, but I just want everyone to know: I think some of the people here really don’t know what they are talking about on the subject of audio. That said: Enjoy your drinks!"
Well, is that being diplomatic? Or being a bit of a jerk? Because instead of actually giving examples of who, or what you are referring to, it’s just a sort of insult sprayed into the room, leaving people wondering "is he talking about me? And if so....WHAT is it that he claims I am so wrong about?"
It sounds more like someone who has an issue with some people, will sort of mildly slander them in public, but in being general it means you get the benefit of "looking like you are right" and some nebulous tainted target is "wrong" but since we don’t know who...they don’t get to defend themselves and you don’t have to back up your disparaging remarks.
Again...I’m not saying you are a jerk for making the OP or that you had any ill will. What I’m saying is that posts in the style you made, even though intending to be diplomatic, can have the opposite effect for the reasons I just outlined.
So, on to whatever I can infer from your OP:
Notice the disparaging "why fake it?"
I’m left wondering who is faking it? And about what. And on whose standards are they "faking it?"
Isn’t anyone here who has set up and carefully put together his own high end audio system "doing it?" If not...what do you mean? Examples, please?
The best I can infer from your OP - and again I have to infer from it’s vague character - is that you are making a "if you haven’t tried X for yourself, then you aren’t in a position to talk about, or cast doubts on X."
Would that be what you are getting at?
If so, surely you realize one can voice reasonable doubts about something one hasn’t tried? I don’t need to try astrology, or homeopathy, because there is every reason to conclude they are nonsense; cosmologists/physicists etc, the ones actually producing reliable knowledge of the universe, will point out there is no way the arrangements of distant stars or planets can affect you in the way astrology suggests. And anyone with a decent understanding of a responsible empirical method can see the methods used by people who claim astrology "works" is a fundamentally poor one - that it works on cherry picking hits, ignoring misses, and an endlessly malleable "theory."
Same goes for homeopathy.
So it’s entirely reasonable for someone who understand THOSE facts to voice reasonable doubt about those endeavors, even without "trying" them. Adherents will tell you to "try it for yourself and see" but if you understand faulty methods of inference, then it’s no surprise that if you adopt those faulty methods yourself you might get the same results.
But that’s not what you do if you care about truth; about epistemic responsibility.
So the same goes for many of the "tweaks" in high end audio. Many of them over the years have been based on very dubious technical stories for how they would work, combined with purely anecdotal "tests" which...what a surprise!...confirm their efficacy!
Just as thousands and millions of people confirm the efficacy of any number of crack-pot nostrums, supernatural entities, etc.
And this brings us to your use of the term "empirical" which traditionally means based on observation/experience vs pure theory/logic.
I’m very big on empiricism so happy to see that word used. But simple appeal to "empirical testing" doesn’t tell us whether the form of testing is a well thought out or reliable one.
Virtually every crackpot idea has "empirical testing" behind it in the form of people trying it out. But science arose as a way of discerning reliable forms of empiricism vs unreliable.
So...when you talk of empirical testing, I’m not sure what you are referring about in particular. What are people supposed to be testing and how?
For myself: I believe for instance in the benefits of blind testing in audio, and I’ve set up blind tests here and there to check out some issues in my own audio journey. And I bring some of that experience to inform my skepticism of some high end audio claims.
Another thing to remember is: someone basing skepticism on empiricism doesn’t require he himself does the testing. I have never myself sent a probe to Mars. But people with the requisite knowledge have, and so if some character wants to claim that Mars is made of cheese, then I’ll point out "No, it’s not." If they say "Well, you can’t have a say on that since you’ve never been to Mars" that would be silly. I can simply appeal to the people who HAVE done so, and how being skeptical of Mars being made of cheese IS based on careful empiricism; the data produced by people who are being the most careful in their empiricism.
So, again, I don’t know exactly what or who you would be aiming at, what practices or what specific type of skepticism that may have been voiced on the forum, and whether your targets actually deserve the disparagement you imply.
I have to echo what someone else wrote: your OP left me wondering what you are actually talking about, and most subsequent posts weren’t too enlightening (aside from going into some detail about the nature of recordings...).
If I may: I think your intent was good, but your OP falls into the trap of setting off some ill will, even if inadvertently.
I get if you find you have a problem with some posters on the site. But imagine this scenario:
You walk into a big party thrown by Stereophile, audiophiles left and right, and you get on the microphone and announce
"Now, I don’t want to name names or anything, but I just want everyone to know: I think some of the people here really don’t know what they are talking about on the subject of audio. That said: Enjoy your drinks!"
Well, is that being diplomatic? Or being a bit of a jerk? Because instead of actually giving examples of who, or what you are referring to, it’s just a sort of insult sprayed into the room, leaving people wondering "is he talking about me? And if so....WHAT is it that he claims I am so wrong about?"
It sounds more like someone who has an issue with some people, will sort of mildly slander them in public, but in being general it means you get the benefit of "looking like you are right" and some nebulous tainted target is "wrong" but since we don’t know who...they don’t get to defend themselves and you don’t have to back up your disparaging remarks.
Again...I’m not saying you are a jerk for making the OP or that you had any ill will. What I’m saying is that posts in the style you made, even though intending to be diplomatic, can have the opposite effect for the reasons I just outlined.
So, on to whatever I can infer from your OP:
why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
What I’m asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
Notice the disparaging "why fake it?"
I’m left wondering who is faking it? And about what. And on whose standards are they "faking it?"
Isn’t anyone here who has set up and carefully put together his own high end audio system "doing it?" If not...what do you mean? Examples, please?
The best I can infer from your OP - and again I have to infer from it’s vague character - is that you are making a "if you haven’t tried X for yourself, then you aren’t in a position to talk about, or cast doubts on X."
Would that be what you are getting at?
If so, surely you realize one can voice reasonable doubts about something one hasn’t tried? I don’t need to try astrology, or homeopathy, because there is every reason to conclude they are nonsense; cosmologists/physicists etc, the ones actually producing reliable knowledge of the universe, will point out there is no way the arrangements of distant stars or planets can affect you in the way astrology suggests. And anyone with a decent understanding of a responsible empirical method can see the methods used by people who claim astrology "works" is a fundamentally poor one - that it works on cherry picking hits, ignoring misses, and an endlessly malleable "theory."
Same goes for homeopathy.
So it’s entirely reasonable for someone who understand THOSE facts to voice reasonable doubt about those endeavors, even without "trying" them. Adherents will tell you to "try it for yourself and see" but if you understand faulty methods of inference, then it’s no surprise that if you adopt those faulty methods yourself you might get the same results.
But that’s not what you do if you care about truth; about epistemic responsibility.
So the same goes for many of the "tweaks" in high end audio. Many of them over the years have been based on very dubious technical stories for how they would work, combined with purely anecdotal "tests" which...what a surprise!...confirm their efficacy!
Just as thousands and millions of people confirm the efficacy of any number of crack-pot nostrums, supernatural entities, etc.
And this brings us to your use of the term "empirical" which traditionally means based on observation/experience vs pure theory/logic.
I’m very big on empiricism so happy to see that word used. But simple appeal to "empirical testing" doesn’t tell us whether the form of testing is a well thought out or reliable one.
Virtually every crackpot idea has "empirical testing" behind it in the form of people trying it out. But science arose as a way of discerning reliable forms of empiricism vs unreliable.
So...when you talk of empirical testing, I’m not sure what you are referring about in particular. What are people supposed to be testing and how?
For myself: I believe for instance in the benefits of blind testing in audio, and I’ve set up blind tests here and there to check out some issues in my own audio journey. And I bring some of that experience to inform my skepticism of some high end audio claims.
Another thing to remember is: someone basing skepticism on empiricism doesn’t require he himself does the testing. I have never myself sent a probe to Mars. But people with the requisite knowledge have, and so if some character wants to claim that Mars is made of cheese, then I’ll point out "No, it’s not." If they say "Well, you can’t have a say on that since you’ve never been to Mars" that would be silly. I can simply appeal to the people who HAVE done so, and how being skeptical of Mars being made of cheese IS based on careful empiricism; the data produced by people who are being the most careful in their empiricism.
So, again, I don’t know exactly what or who you would be aiming at, what practices or what specific type of skepticism that may have been voiced on the forum, and whether your targets actually deserve the disparagement you imply.
