Moving cables around killed dynamics for days anyone else experience this?

If the preceding did anything, besides creating the expected dust-storm, as well as providing a podium for some pro-level splainin’, it might have given some insight into why so many of the movies we see sound as bad as they do.

Just sayin’ eh.

mahgister,

My remark about your mind set is not a more ad hominem act than your assimilation of subjectivist audiophiles, who report something about cables, to the flat earther, and anti-vaxing crowd ...

Are you unaware of how a principle of reason can be often be defended by deliberately choosing extreme examples on the assumption that both parties agree on that example, hence establishing the principle?


As in, the parent to the child "You tried smoking because Eddie told you to?  WOULD YOU JUMP OFF A CLIFF IF EDDIE TOLD YOU TO?"


The extreme example is adduced not to show that two examples are the same, but that the PRINCIPLE applied to the two examples are the same.


That was my point about neutrality.  You seemed to imply that merely being "not neutral" amounted to some critique of my position.  My appeal to being "neutral" about flat or round earth was deliberately extreme so that you'd agree with the principle that "neutrality" is not in of itself some intrinsic virtue or indication of reasonableness.


Of course any argument has to be "neutral" in terms of not begging the question.  You can't assume X is the case but have to produce the argument for it being the case.


But beyond that, it's hard to see what point you could have been making about "not being neutral."

By the way an argument can be perfectly rational and sound and used in a non neutral way, motivated by an agenda. (examples abound: using Darwinian science facts in a political agenda etc).

Er...yes.  Of course.  That's perfectly compatible with what I already wrote about arguments themselves not being neutral.  Someone will have their motivations/reasons for defending a particular position.  The motivations can vary wildly among people.

That doesn't tell us whether the arguments are reasonable or sound or not, so...again...it's often hard to find your point.  How does any of that relate to audiophile claims?  Should no one make claims?  Should only one viewpoint (e.g. the purely subjectivist) be allowed to make claims?What is your actual point?

taras

it might have given some insight into why so many of the movies we see sound as bad as they do.

Indeed.  Perhaps a petition to the post production sound industry from audiophiles, as to how the pros ought to dress their cables, is the fix!

I see an opportunity there, taras ;-)

" Sure: Among audiophiles, who have also discussed "for decades" the "sonic effects" of a vast amount of pseudo-scientific "effects" (often barely that). "
  It's the PT Barnum effect or as it would be in plain words and not psychobabble. It goes thusly. Namely there is a sucker born every minute and alongside him is the guy who figures out how to part him from his money.
  The only other thing I have personally seen that eclipses this nonsense are those who think crystals and rocks will heal you. Used to know a rock hound who discovered how to sell quartz crystals to these nuts. He would stand there with a crystal on a string and rotate it one way. If the heely feely did not get excited he would reverse direction of rotation a couple of crystals later and they would buy them. We always had a good laugh over the gullibility of people that knew no bounds. I would set up at rock shows and there would be space cadets come by and ask me if I though various stones would be good for their altars. Altars to what I never inquired about with these flat Earthers.

 Tourmaline for speakers comes to mind now that I think about it and I am happy to see someone profit off the gulls.
  The other thought I have, besides the one of some treating this as a serious topic, is how much fun it would be to come up with these topics for amusements sake and let them rip. Surely that can't happen here! The sad part is I can't figure out where the OP stands and that is kind of scary.

I have no position....Only some limited experience that I cannot deny with your argument...

You can say I have too much imagination for sure....

And by the way associating generally ridiculous claims (flat earther) or generally accepted non scientific one (anti vaxers) to some group of people,(audiophiles), and linking the 2 is certainly not neutral discourse...And absolutely not the same that appealing to a common ground neutral logical argument accepted by all...It is more akin to a universal appeal to all, to reject those who are associated with them (flat earthers, anti vax, subjectivist audiophiles, like you called them). There is a difference between the logical content of an argument and his rhetorical content...


And look Prof, someone just came in, send by God or his adversary, ( :) ) answering your unvolontary call (the preceding post)...It is instructive to read his post ( rhetorical all the way down!)....By the way the fact that I discuss with you prove to you that, even if we differ, I respect you and we can discuss; I dont think that I can or wanted to discuss with this poster before mine...

My best to you...