glupson,
Thanks.
Nowhere in this thread have I disparaged MG’s products or his room tuning ideas. I did not even take those to be the subject of the thread. Because his OP did not even refer to room tuning, but rather to a much broader complaint about some people critiquing based only on theory but not on what Michael would take to be "empirical" testing.
That could certainly be a fascinating discussion. I’ve long had an interest in the philosophy of empiricism and the philosophy of science, so I was, as I originally mentioned, happy to see someone bring this up.
But my attempt to draw out Michael on his point and ideas only met with...for some bizarre reason...evasions and vagueness. I’m still baffled as to why.
Moreover, Michael’s subsequent posts have been focused on turning the conversation to room tuning and, in fact he has just tipped his hand that his OP, though ostensibly looking for conversation about theoretical vs empirical attitudes, was actually his "door" to offer more about The Tune. He apparently wasn't looking for dialogue so much as saying "I'm here to give wisdom about my room tuning methods, you are either ready to receive or not."
So, it frankly makes his OP look all the more like a disingenuous, self-serving marketing move - an excuse for him to tell us more about his room/recording tuning, vs a real call to dialogue about the subject he actually implied in the OP.
Thanks.
Nowhere in this thread have I disparaged MG’s products or his room tuning ideas. I did not even take those to be the subject of the thread. Because his OP did not even refer to room tuning, but rather to a much broader complaint about some people critiquing based only on theory but not on what Michael would take to be "empirical" testing.
That could certainly be a fascinating discussion. I’ve long had an interest in the philosophy of empiricism and the philosophy of science, so I was, as I originally mentioned, happy to see someone bring this up.
But my attempt to draw out Michael on his point and ideas only met with...for some bizarre reason...evasions and vagueness. I’m still baffled as to why.
Moreover, Michael’s subsequent posts have been focused on turning the conversation to room tuning and, in fact he has just tipped his hand that his OP, though ostensibly looking for conversation about theoretical vs empirical attitudes, was actually his "door" to offer more about The Tune. He apparently wasn't looking for dialogue so much as saying "I'm here to give wisdom about my room tuning methods, you are either ready to receive or not."
So, it frankly makes his OP look all the more like a disingenuous, self-serving marketing move - an excuse for him to tell us more about his room/recording tuning, vs a real call to dialogue about the subject he actually implied in the OP.