@grannyring
If you are looking specifically for talk on "Tuning," why would you be coming to this thread? There is already an A-gon thread Michael G created specifically devoted to his method of tuning:
The Method Of Tuning:
https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/the-method-of-tuning You refer to "off topic" posts or comments in this thread...but what do you actually think IS the topic described in the thread title and OP?
Do you see the word "Tuning" mentioned?
Nope.
The topic was this:
MG: One question I am almost always asked while I am visiting other forums, from some of my members and also members of the forum I am visiting is, why do so many HEA hobbyist talk theory without any, or very limited, empirical testing or experience?
reiterated at the end of the OP:
I’m also not asking you guys to defend HEA, we’ve all heard it been there done it. What I’m asking is a very simple question in a hobby that is suppose to be based on "doing", why fake it?
So, as communicated by the words MG actually used in his OP, the topic wasn’t directly about tuning, but was concerned the hobby of High End Audio - which of course is what you and I and everyone else is doing here. And then he was saying some people are faking it in high end audio, only talking (e.g. talking theory) but not in fact testing empirically what they are talking about.
I don’t see how you could ignore that this was the subject of the OP.
Now, given that was actually the subject he raised...how is it not on topic to ask questions like:
How might that critique actually apply and to whom? How is one to know when one is, on this account, "doing the hobby" and not faking it? And hence what do you mean exactly by empirical testing - do you mean simply trying anything? Or being more rigorous in the method of testing, since you mentioned engineering and science? And is it actually illegitimate, or even not part of the hobby, to talk about theory, and whether a theory actually seems cogent, explanatory or realistic? Why is talking about audio theory "faking it?" And is someone faking it simply by questioning the basis for some other audiophile’s claim? Why wouldn’t it make sense to FIRST want to see good reasons for why a tweak or product is likely to be efficacious, when deciding whether it’s worth one’s time or money to try it out? Does one HAVE to have experience with X in order to ask legitimate questions about X? And as to the division between questioning a claimed phenomenon via theory or personal experience: Why can’t one point to empirical evidence gathered by other people? If to speak about a phenomenon, or to have a belief about it without direct experience was illegitimate, then we could never avail ourselves of all the scientific evidence and knowledge that WE ourselves didn’t gather.
Why aren’t any or all of those questions legitimate and applicable to ask someone who made an OP like Michael’s?
Isn't it fair to inquire further about whether Michael’s appeal to empiricism, science, experience and why someone might, or might not, deserve to have their own methods, or interaction with the hobby characterized with the derogatory phase "faking it."
And those are the right-on-topic questions I was raising from the beginning, that MG decided were irrelevant.
They could only be irrelevant if MG’s motivation wasn’t to discuss with any depth the topic he raised, or engaged replies that at all challenged him to clarify or even support what he was claiming, but only wanted to use the thread for yet more evangelizing about his Tuning methods (and services). And that would be an obvious bait and switch to do so, especially when he already made a thread dedicated to discussing his tuning method.
So which is it grannyring? Is the topic of the thread not, in fact, what Michael wrote, and which I have identified?
Or is the topic actually yet another stealth move for Michael to get people asking him about his Tuning method, get people to his website/forum, etc. when he already has threads going devoted to that topic?
