I'm here for the sharing, not the snobery

It's easy to see the problem just looking at some of these posts. It's easy to agree to disagree on personal preference it's only when some think personal preference are commandments or universal.  I can't agree to disagree on the premise that measurements and science are mutually exclusive. Science uses measurements to explain not just theorize. I assume we all know the current working theory for gravity is Einstein's Theory of Relativity but Newton's laws are sufficient to explain phenomena on Earth and get us to planets in the Solar system. Science uses those measurements all the time. We know the frequency range of human hearing, we know how the ear works, we know the physics and electrical laws and theories to build electronics. We can't know what each individual "perceives". We can use models and tests to get an idea of what "most" like but not all. Ignoring what science can do with a general dismissal "we don't know everything so we know nothing" leads to a lot of these conflicts.

@cleeds  I'm in philosophy.

@artemus_5  "One of the problem on any forum or discussion is "facts". Everyone is interested in the "FACTS" But facts actually say nothing until their interpretation. There is where the disagreement starts."

Excellent point. Sometimes it starts even earlier, since the question of *which* facts are relevant is an interpretive move which precedes the selection of facts. In conversations about religion this is sometimes called "proof texting" or, more generically, "cherry-picking." It's not about whether something is or is not a fact; it's about whether (as the Brits pointed out about US foreign policy a decade ago) the facts were being selected to suit the policy.

@erik_squires 
"We need to give more people latitude when they make a subjective statement, as personal taste and value systems can't be argued."

I have seen my own value systems argued against here and it has helped me. I said, at one point, that I valued a lot of clarity in the upper end. People questioned whether I liked "brightness" or "accuracy." I realized that I was not clear in my own mind about what I actually valued. So, them questioning me about my own senses and what I thought I valued helped me reconsider my own subjective "certainties." They were, it turns out, wrong. The result was that I got clearer about what I should value, instead.

That was a lesson for me, both about vocabulary and fineness of sensations. That's the hard part for a lot of people -- there IS such a thing about arguing about taste, at the very least, to help someone else discover what they sense, what they call it, and how that experience should factor into a larger, composite experience. (Just watch a parent try to get a kid to enjoy a vegetable. Part of the challenge is to get them to abandon certain predilections about what food *should* taste like. They are just too narrow and their tastes need to be expanded.
As an audio correlate, look at posts about how many, less expensive B&W speakers are bright; this quality helps make a fast impression, but for those who know more, it lacks some of the "sophistication" of other (better) speakers. That is about the sugar-high of brightness being taken as (subjectively) better than the air, clarity, non-fatiguing implementation of other speakers.

In anything there are two side for any coin...

It is simpler and deeper to recognize this fact...

Arguing after that is less attack and more complementarity...

Anyway most audio engineers are also artists for example...

Then all arguing about something comes less from being right than being forfgetful of something...

Save for being patently wrong or very "forgetful" here like thinking that for example "absorbing all reflections" is always good for acoustic impression...

Because some reflections are in fact and in truth good for the acoustical timing threshold control.... This is a fact....one side coin? No the coin is acoustic here, not only the reflection concept...

Then seeing two sides is possible if we look the encompassing perspective and not the details only...

it is more easy to love someone than hating it....Generally.... But for some case being "Christlike" is mandatory....

And anyway it is mandatory to become Buddah or Christlike....No choices here....

😊



«Give me your popsicle please and you will be Christlike»-Groucho Marx

All joking aside, this reminds me of my own reaction-formation process to room/acoustical treatment.


First off, I for years decried and dismissed those on this forum who rushed to any thread asking for component recommendations with cries for room treatment, often costing much more than some of the recommended components. Yes, I knew that room treatments DO make a difference, but I don't know and don't pretend to know how much or how little they do - my own room treatments being rugs, large canvas paintings, and boxy IKEA floor lamps in the corners.


And yet the room treatment members were, by and large, a knowledgeable bunch whose own systems and discussions reflected a deep and wide perspective of the hobby.


And while I'm never going to drop mad stacks on bass traps and corner thingies and vertical cityscape squares on the walls, I'm trying to get over my subjectivity on the topic and at least validate the objectivity of decent room treatment as a vital component of a good system.