WHY IS THERE SO MUCH HATE FOR THE HIGH END GEAR ON AUDIO GEAR?

scottwheel

It does strike me as problematic that science is seen as a “camp.”

That's a logical fallacy, straw man argument. There is a bias here against measurementalists, who often parade as scientists or "objectivists." But of course they are among the most biased on the group, the "nay-sayers."

It’s not a straw man Calvinj referred to “a scientific measurement camp.” 

Scientism has nothing to do with sciences ...

And sound quality perception is too complex to be reduced to electrical engineers explanation... Psycho-acoustics also play the most part in the sound studies ...

This does not means that amplifier designer work with their mere only taste to design more musical gear, they can use psycho-acoustics results, about harmonics perception ,the non linear time domain of the brain or crosstalk effects on the brain etc ...

As i said , objectivist and subjectivist are two opposed and deluded groups about a too complex problem : the objective conditions and the subjective correlated conditions in the perception of qualities ...

Psycho-acoustics is the science who put the right question here , and the answers are complex and multidisciplinary , never simplistic as claimed by the two opinionated groups above ...

«Complexity and intelligence begin as claimed the late Charles Sanders Peirce with the number three » -- Anonymus thinker 🧐

«The three musketeers were four because three is not the end of the world»-- Anonymus Alexandre Dumas reader

«For the sake of power any group can be usefully  divided in two : the good and the bad »-- Anonymus Machiavelli reader

I am certainly not parading as a scientist . One does not need to be a scientist to have a basic understanding of science. I don’t parade as a scientist but I listen to them, look at their research and give scientists and their work the credibility it is due. I am certainly not an objectivist. If logical fallacies are going to be pointed out then  ad hominem needs to be called out here. It ain’t about me. My questions stand unanswered. So I will ask again. What do you think scientists in the field of psychoacoustics have been continually getting wrong for the past 100 years? Aren’t the conflicts between your beliefs and the large body of research in psychoacoustics a cause for examination of one’s personal beliefs? 

my post was my opinion and not aimed at you but being after your post it was in some way related to your post...😁

My opinion is that there is many sciences involved not only one as in electrical engineering ...

Then in audio we must add all multidisciplinary factors at play ...

Then i cannot be subjectivist nor objectivist ... This is my opinion ..

And psycho-acoustics so technologically advanced it is and it is, had no complete understanding once for all of human hearing ... There is only competing theories ...

It was not my intention to attack you but to give my opinion here ... When we say that something make no difference because electrical engineering said so , it is not necessarily a scientific position ... Why ? because the problem is sometimes multidisciplinary and more complex than we think ... this is my point ...

And i dont like as you ad hominem attack ... we then can understand ourself ...

Dividing audio in two camps is useless...

I am certainly not parading as a scientist . One does not need to be a scientist to have a basic understanding of science. I don’t parade as a scientist but I listen to them, look at their research and give scientists and their work the credibility it is due. I am certainly not an objectivist. If logical fallacies are going to be pointed out then ad hominem needs to be called out here. It ain’t about me. My questions stand unanswered. So I will ask again. What do you think scientists in the field of psychoacoustics have been continually getting wrong for the past 100 years? Aren’t the conflicts between your beliefs and the large body of research in psychoacoustics a cause for examination of one’s personal beliefs?