Beware the audio guru


There are a few contributors to these forums who apparently see themselves as gurus. They speak in absolutes, using words such as "always" and "never." They make pronouncements about products or techniques they’ve never heard or experienced, justifying their conclusions because contrary claims are "impossible" or "snake oil." Those who disagree are accused of being "deluded," or suffering some insurmountable bias, or attempting to further some commercial agenda. On occasion, they have taunted detractors with an appeal that they engage in a wager - one guy wanted $25,000 cash up front and an agreement drafted by lawyers. Another offered 5-to-1 odds.

I am not going to tell you who to believe. But for anyone who might be uncertain about sorting out conflicting claims here, I suggest they consider the behavior of experts in other fields. No good doctor offers a 100 percent guarantee on any treatment or surgical procedure, even if medical science suggests success. No good attorney will tell you that you have a case that positively can’t be lost, even if the law appears to be on your side. No true professional will insult you for the questions you ask, or abandon you if you seek a second opinion.

A doctor conducts his own tests. An engineer makes his own measurements. Neither will insist the burden of documentation falls upon you.

These might be details to consider as you sift through the many conflicting claims made on Audiogon. In short: Decide for yourself. Don’t let other people tell you how to think, or listen.
Ag insider logo xs@2xcleeds
Which is why I’ve always said (connection to my prior post) that in order to get an engineering degree or masters or doctorate, people should be required to take at least two basic psychology courses and apply them.

Otherwise any instances on reality in science that emit from them as proclamations nailed to the science church door...are likely to be corrupted by their own inadequacies in their projections.

And if they don’t even know, at all... the vehicle that colors and filters them in every breath, the undercurrent of everything they are and do...then they can be dangerous. Plain and simply --dangerous.

The more elevated their scientific message, the more dangerously off kilter it can be, if they don’t even know what the hell they are. Which covers most people in the sciences. They are in the sciences as the humanities don’t fit them, for the very larger part.. A very dangerous scenario, in some cases and in overall directions in science.

But, I just insulted someone, and said... they don’t know themselves. Even if the remark is true ~and it is~, people will take insult.

As for knowing yourself, knowing the sound of the ego thing of the body making words in your own head, really does not cut it. That’s ground zero for that first step of a long journey.
The things I’m talking about, the unspeakable, as it were, are not taught in Psychology class. If they were taught in Psychology class at least you would be able to put a name to them. In a sense they’re not even psychological in the everyday sense of the word. Not a trick, as it were, like subliminal advertising. Or a mind game. Something deeper. More insidious. But I’ve said too much.
@teo_audio - I can’t help but reply. Based on you post, the principles, discoveries and the very scientific process itself, would have to be thrown out, or- considered, "dangerous", because the following believed in a supreme being(though, as previously noted, I don’t necessarily agree with their theology). I’ve made it easy on anyone that’s actually interested in learning where some of the foundational doctrines, regarding Physics, Atomic Theory, Electrical Theory, electromagnetism, Quantum Mechanics, etc(and even the vacuum tube), originated(I can’t help but think/hope you’re out there). Just click on the names, if you don’t recognize them, and/or their contributions to SCIENCE, in their various fields: