Have we lost civility and respect on Audio forums?

“Dude, I came from a different engineering discipline (nothing to do with audio) where folks could die if we make a coupla innocent li’l mistakes. Hence, extreme levels of rigor was required and we couldn’t afford to do any kind of fake parade like you.”

 

wow you are so cool. I am in awe…

”In fact, i was hinting on some phenomena we’ve studied in another discipline for other applications (nothing do do with audio), which clearly should have some implication for audio. Some apparently celebrated speaker designers i’ve spoken to had never heard of it (got real glazy eyed when i brought it up).”

what you misidentified as a Doppler effect is wave interference. It’s about as basic as it gets. If there really are speaker designers that are unaware of it stay the hell away from their products. It’s pretty basic stuff in speaker design. It doesn’t just happen with sound in the ultrasonic range. Nor does it just happen with tones that are close in frequency. It’s an issue with multi-driver integration. The overlapping wave forms can do the same thing. It’s also something we live with, well most audiophiles live with because of the interaction between two speakers. It’s called comb filtering. Again this is audio 101. Jeez it used to be how people tuned guitars.

“I am guessing internet warrior Scott had never heard of it either. But, here he is, pretending to be the instantaneous expert.”

and you would be guessing wrong. I never claimed to be any kind of expert either. But if knowing about wave interactions where you set the bar…

Ah yes, indeed....Scott’s got Chat GPT and some AI support these days at his fingertips...He will do a ctrl C, ctrl V, paste some crap and there he will be on a forum, looking like an instantaneous genius for the poor old Audiogon crowd.

So, how do we catch Scott’s fake parade boys?

Hmmm, aha....i suppose we could ask him to develop a concurrent run CFD model feeding its output into a FEM tool for modeling some events in an acoustic chamber, for instance. We would like to study the damage susceptibility of some electronic components from vibration input derived from an acoustic envelope, typical of launch environments (in such a test chamber)..... Now, some masochistic aerospace PhD will cry all day, sweat blood for a year and come up with something. But, now... Scott’s bluff would get caught. Chat GPT would bail on Scott real quick there boys. 😁 bwaaahahahaha

“I understood by your own post claims that you are an expert in cable transparency”

That is *your* misunderstanding. It does not take any kind of expertise to understand cable transparency.

”and an advocate of blind tests as the main solution to all subjectivist audiophiles superstitions ... No ?”

I am an advocate of blind protocols in any testing for differences or preferences. Has nothing to do with subjectivism vs objectivism. Terms which are mostly misused to identify with audiophiles that accept science in audio vs those who reject it. But even more so than that I am an advocate of time synchronized quick switching comparisons. Both are vital for getting reliable results. How other audiophiles choose to do their comparisons is on them. 

“Ah yes, indeed....Scott’s got Chat GPT and some AI support these days at his fingertips...”

Are you really so bedazzled by a very basic understanding of wave interaction that you would think it is so unreachable that my comments which were right off the top of my head would require Chat GPT or some AI to access? Ok….. that really is a low bar. That’s hilarious.

Right on cue, the self appointed audio experts appear and start arguing.  Told you so.

You are completely wrong here...

The two side subjectivist and objectivist are not divided between scientists on one side and superstitious dudes on the other side ...😁

This division exist because some people trust first and often more their own hearing habits and personal histories in listening to create their own audio system than only measured specs ...

The other side trust mostly if not only and completely the electrical measures specs of the pieces of gear over their own ears to create their own audio system ...They ask for double blind test precisely for this reason about any perceived change for any claims about sound qualities ...

The fact that you mischaracterized the real distinctions between the two groups by reducing one side to supertitious or self deception and the other side to be scientific , reveal your own partiality and misunderstanding ..

i myself identify with no side... the two sides may be beside the main acoustics points and matter for different reasons pertaining to their own divergent biases...

I trust my ears but i learned that we can trust it only by acoustics experiments ...then i am neither a subjectivist nor an objectivist...

But it is more wise to trust his common sense and ears when buying something than only confide in measured specs after blind test ...

Nobody is against blind test but this is an impractical way to design an audio system in his acoustic environment by the way ...

but it is useful if our mission in life is to mock and debunk an owner of a costly cable for sure ... 😊

Then you speak as an ideologue or a propagandist... Common sense is my preference ...And psycho-acoustics where subjectivity and objectivity are correlated and studied as not separable...

I am an advocate of blind protocols in any testing for differences or preferences. Has nothing to do with subjectivism vs objectivism. Terms which are mostly misused to identify with audiophiles that accept science in audio vs those who reject it. But even more so than that I am an advocate of time synchronized quick switching comparisons. Both are vital for getting reliable results. How other audiophiles choose to do their comparisons is on them.