Canuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio ForumCanuck Audio Mart Hifi and Audio Forum
It is currently Sun Oct 21, 2018 12:35 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 152 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:18 pm
Posts: 614
Location: Sooke, BC, CA
Is there a need or desire to have a mechanism to verify technical claims?

I sense there are many very highly qualified engineers , scientists and technicians remaining silent on this forum.

Do you feel CAM might benefit from having more input from this group, perhaps even a mod or two?

_________________
Use Linux, Be Cool and Be Smart


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:20 am
Posts: 5205
Location: London, ON, CA
HELL NO !!! We already have the technology ... our own ears. Besides that, we all hear things differently and have different preferences.
I see ABSOLUTELY no need for an egg-head squad that cares more about the technology than the music. No good could ever come of it.

_________________
1978 Rickenbacker 4001, 2010 Gibson Thunderbird, and Dean Fretless Basses;
1987 Guild Nightbird, 2000 Taylor 310KCE, and Godin 5th Avenue Guitars.

Sorry, Mister Vice President, 'The Handmaid's Tale' is not a documentary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:54 am 
Offline
Dealer/Sponsor

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:33 am
Posts: 1978
Location: Kingston, ON, CA
Audio_Guy wrote:
Is there a need or desire to have a mechanism to verify technical claims?

I sense there are many very highly qualified engineers , scientists and technicians remaining silent on this forum.

Do you feel CAM might benefit from having more input from this group, perhaps even a mod or two?



What you seem to be trying to say is that you are trying to find a way to drive the forum into a direction that you desire it to go, not where the current moderation and ownership of the forum has it going.

The direction it is going is into reasoned debate by people who can control their urges.

Not hard slams by bible thumpers who deny anything outside of that bible. Even if science says it is in new areas of exploration. Which is the very point of science itself.

Let's get this hat (thread) on as psychologically straight and as open as it should be. Not this clandestine probing for attack partners.

-- 15 Feb 2018 13:01 --

Quadzilla wrote:
HELL NO !!! We already have the technology ... our own ears. Besides that, we all hear things differently and have different preferences.
I see ABSOLUTELY no need for an egg-head squad that cares more about the technology than the music. No good could ever come of it.



And in every instance it has been tried and been successful, no good ever has come of it. All we end up with is a bunch of over active guardians of the technological bible, who see no further - in anything.

The mid level religious clerks of the dark ages, those employees of the massive and ubiquitous churches....that psychology did not go anywhere. People don't change that fast in their psychological profiling. But the job description did.

_________________
(Ken Hotte, of) Teo Audio


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 614
Location: scarborough, ON, CA
Audio_Guy wrote:
Is there a need or desire to have a mechanism to verify technical claims?

I sense there are many very highly qualified engineers , scientists and technicians remaining silent on this forum.

Do you feel CAM might benefit from having more input from this group, perhaps even a mod or two?

Hi Audio Guy,

Are you wishing there was more opinion from those that actually know what they are talking about?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:20 am
Posts: 5205
Location: London, ON, CA
scarbpaul12 wrote:
Audio_Guy wrote:
Is there a need or desire to have a mechanism to verify technical claims?

I sense there are many very highly qualified engineers , scientists and technicians remaining silent on this forum.

Do you feel CAM might benefit from having more input from this group, perhaps even a mod or two?

Hi Audio Guy,

Are you wishing there was more opinion from those that actually know what they are talking about?


... or from those who will TELL you they "actually know what they are talking about"? ... usually ad nauseum, to make themselves feel smart.

_________________
1978 Rickenbacker 4001, 2010 Gibson Thunderbird, and Dean Fretless Basses;
1987 Guild Nightbird, 2000 Taylor 310KCE, and Godin 5th Avenue Guitars.

Sorry, Mister Vice President, 'The Handmaid's Tale' is not a documentary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 3:45 pm
Posts: 21124
Location: Panache Bay
Teo Audio wrote:
Audio_Guy wrote:
Is there a need or desire to have a mechanism to verify technical claims?

I sense there are many very highly qualified engineers , scientists and technicians remaining silent on this forum.

Do you feel CAM might benefit from having more input from this group, perhaps even a mod or two?



What you seem to be trying to say is that you are trying to find a way to drive the forum into a direction that you desire it to go, not where the current moderation and ownership of the forum has it going.

The direction it is going is into reasoned debate by people who can control their urges.

Not hard slams by bible thumpers who deny anything outside of that bible. Even if science says it is in new areas of exploration. Which is the very point of science itself.

Let's get this hat (thread) on as psychologically straight and as open as it should be. Not this clandestine probing for attack partners.

-- 15 Feb 2018 13:01 --

Quadzilla wrote:
HELL NO !!! We already have the technology ... our own ears. Besides that, we all hear things differently and have different preferences.
I see ABSOLUTELY no need for an egg-head squad that cares more about the technology than the music. No good could ever come of it.



And in every instance it has been tried and been successful, no good ever has come of it. All we end up with is a bunch of over active guardians of the technological bible, who see no further - in anything.

The mid level religious clerks of the dark ages, those employees of the massive and ubiquitous churches....that psychology did not go anywhere. People don't change that fast in their psychological profiling. But the job description did.


Ken...I don't always agree with you...but...on this...you're bang on... :)

_________________
"...why would I tell you? ...I might...I mean maybe...we'll see...who knows?"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:55 pm
Posts: 3011
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
And what kind of mechanism should be put in place, and who will be placed in charge to verify its integrity? Audio manufactures can’t even follow a set standard. Specifications can be very misleading.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V6YN-mshmY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 2:37 pm
Posts: 2226
Location: checked out
Audio_Guy wrote:
Is there a need or desire to have a mechanism to verify technical claims?

I sense there are many very highly qualified engineers , scientists and technicians remaining silent on this forum.

Do you feel CAM might benefit from having more input from this group, perhaps even a mod or two?


I wish there were more egg-heads.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:30 pm
Posts: 439
Location: Regina, SK, CA
Unfortunately your best defence is to develope your own, better, bulls*** detector.
Read other forums, use snopes, read more documentation, practice and trial.
If someones's opinion lines with your own thoughts, reach out by PM, start a conversation with those you feel have already traveled the path you are on for a particular subject.
If I had a further suggestion, read past posts of those you wonder where they are coming from. You will soon develop a sense of who not to give weight to.
Some members post daily, hourly, constantly. Not every post is a 'home run'. Many many more are better begun with 'IMO, IMHO, or just MO'
Maybe a new Forum section...'Fact or Foolishness?' It would be big forum...
It could have its own smilies section for BS. Perhaps a set of BS smilies as a rating system...BS1 to 3....or 10.

JMO...

_________________
Vintage has a place.....mostly in my basement.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:25 am
Posts: 454
Location: Comox, BC, CA
Audio_Guy wrote:
Is there a need or desire to have a mechanism to verify technical claims?

I sense there are many very highly qualified engineers , scientists and technicians remaining silent on this forum.

Do you feel CAM might benefit from having more input from this group, perhaps even a mod or two?


Here's all the science you need -- "two bodies cannot occupy the same space."

All the engineers, scientists and technicians, assuming they're not the tin-hat type, will agree that's an axiomatic statement.

So, you cannot hear what I hear, you cannot see what I see, you cannot experience what I experience whether we agree on the parameters or not. My 'green' is not your green, my 'sweet or sour' will not be the same as yours, and what I hear -- warm, soft, forward, improved, blacker, whatever, cannot be verified nor denied by a machine putating to measure what I experience, because it can only measure the stimulus, not the response.

If someone is making false claims and commiting fraud then report it to the police. If you dont like how people spend their money, go into politics and spend it for them. If you dont like how the forum is managed, there's the exit -- no one is holding you hostage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:09 am 
Offline
Dealer/Sponsor

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:33 am
Posts: 1978
Location: Kingston, ON, CA
Mod Beat wrote:
Audio_Guy wrote:
Is there a need or desire to have a mechanism to verify technical claims?

I sense there are many very highly qualified engineers , scientists and technicians remaining silent on this forum.

Do you feel CAM might benefit from having more input from this group, perhaps even a mod or two?


I wish there were more egg-heads.


a real egg head is forward looking. A poseur drags out the technological bible and uses any form of punishment they can deliver.

Sadly we end up with too many poseurs.

We need egheads who are wise enough and potent enough to stand up to the poseurs who really don't know what the bleeding edge of the complex sciences of hearing, electrical function and new technology..as a set, bring to the audio table.

Real eggheads stay away from this debate and don't get involved in forums that allow for poseur eggheads to control the debate and spend all their time being comfortable in trying to exercise control over others, to fight as a norm in behavior. ie, the monkey in man being covered up by the battle and the policing..tied to a limited depth of knowledge in complex fields that are not fully explored.

that's what poses as eggheads on the vast majority of forums out there, that involve science.

Real actual scientists don't waste their time and life getting involved. It would eat their lives away and they are entirely too intelligent to allow that to happen and spend their time and life in places and ways that are effective.

To make it clear, I asked multiple department heads in the realm of physics and hard science (we were having discussions and it was an opportune time), all at one of the most prestigious universities in canada.. I asked these people, at queens university (here in Kingston), exactly where does this issue of 'biblical expression of attack' of new since that is unexplored, this attack on anything that looks new..where exactly does this come from? Does anyone here teach that if it is not in the physics texts and formulas, that it can't be real? That was not the way of science, I said, not my understanding of how science worked.

Every single one of them said that they do not teach attack. They teach the exact opposite. That science, in the end, has no facts, when dealing with the absolute bleeding edge. I asked about this pointedly, the understanding that underlies it all..that all is theory subject to change in the face of new evidence. Due to us not even understanding the nature of an atom....that there is no "one more decimal point of extracted accuracy..will somehow...suddenly explain and solidify everything into a comfort zone of knowing." that we are only using theory in the 3d-timespaceworld..and that due to that underlying aspect..that facts work in the everyday world but in reality that facts don't actually exist.


That, still, in some fundamental way, right at the edge, it could be turtles all the way down. They agreed..that this is the way of things. I said, to complement their agreeing...That people like to be comfortable in their cultural and sociological circles of day to day life, but that there is, in the end, no such thing as facts. But ....that people, in their daily lives, don't operate that way. They can't, the underlying aspects of the animal in man, the rose colored glasses filter of the body..can't continually operate in a zone of not knowing. Even though the reality is one of not knowing. This is the nut (to crack) that science has to deal with: the complexity of the animal in man vs the logic of clearheaded analysis. We reached agreement in this..this problem. These things are almost never spoken of but underlie true and actual science -in it's proper and pure functional form.

Science is a child of philosophy, it is a child branch of philosophy, a branch designed to typify, categorize, explore and make record of the 'physical world' and possibly more (beyond).

So, we communicate in the world of facts and hard realities, but at the fundamental level, it simply does not exist.... and in exploratory worlds, which is the point of science itself, none of that factual world applies, outside of being a general guide.

They agreed, yes, something like that or very close to that. It's different to each person, but that in essence, this is what the heads of the physics and hard science departments at what might be Canada's most prestigious university were communicating in private conversations. As it is the reality we deal with.

And they don't have time to try and straighten out the mass of people on forums who can't psychologically reach or deal with such complexities.

So they are not here. They'll never be here.

Which leaves it to the poseurs who don't really understand the limitations and the range and the true intent of science, they are left to project their desires as hard as they can onto forums everywhere.

Desires that are misinformed and and generally flat out backward. But also driven strongly by emotion. Which cannot be defeated by logic and analysis. One would have to be a fool to try.

_________________
(Ken Hotte, of) Teo Audio


Last edited by Teo Audio on Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:47 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:43 pm
Posts: 1693
Location: *, ON, CA
Actually they can, just not at the same time. :twisted:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:22 am 
Offline
Dealer/Sponsor

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:33 am
Posts: 1978
Location: Kingston, ON, CA
tsearay wrote:
Actually they can, just not at the same time. :twisted:



Let me clarify. I encourage people to go after bad science. But be sure in what one is doing -which is difficult to properly do but easy to believe one is in proper context and drive. And to not be brutal. We don't individually each own the world or other people. It's a shared space.

It is not really ever a question of science. It's almost exclusively a human problem in the given scenarios. Just my observation.

_________________
(Ken Hotte, of) Teo Audio


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:20 am
Posts: 5205
Location: London, ON, CA
Teo Audio wrote:
tsearay wrote:
Actually they can, just not at the same time. :twisted:



Let me clarify. I encourage people to go after bad science. But be sure in what one is doing -which is difficult to properly do but easy to believe one is in proper context and drive. And to not be brutal. We don't individually each own the world or other people. It's a shared space.

It is not really ever a question of science. It's almost exclusively a human problem in the given scenarios. Just my observation.


It is hard though, when that 'science' is shrouded in intentional deflection and nebulous verbosity. :mrgreen:

_________________
1978 Rickenbacker 4001, 2010 Gibson Thunderbird, and Dean Fretless Basses;
1987 Guild Nightbird, 2000 Taylor 310KCE, and Godin 5th Avenue Guitars.

Sorry, Mister Vice President, 'The Handmaid's Tale' is not a documentary.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:00 am 
Offline
Dealer/Sponsor

Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 8:33 am
Posts: 1978
Location: Kingston, ON, CA
Quadzilla wrote:
Teo Audio wrote:
tsearay wrote:
Actually they can, just not at the same time. :twisted:



Let me clarify. I encourage people to go after bad science. But be sure in what one is doing -which is difficult to properly do but easy to believe one is in proper context and drive. And to not be brutal. We don't individually each own the world or other people. It's a shared space.

It is not really ever a question of science. It's almost exclusively a human problem in the given scenarios. Just my observation.


It is hard though, when that 'science' is shrouded in intentional deflection and nebulous verbosity. :mrgreen:



Truth cannot be brought down; rather, the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountaintop to the valley. If you would attain to the mountaintop, you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices.

--Jiddu Krishnamurti


Learning can be and generally is painful --the old gets burned out then the new can begin to fit in. Chemical pain and ecstasy combined. It's how the body works. The monkey in man (avatar and ego, the autonomous filters in permanence) studiously avoids the pain. It runs from it or fights with it. The body seeks the comfort and the ecstasy and avoids the pain of the new or uncomfortable.

Like Tom Berenger said in Platoon, with his hand over the kid's mouth (who had been shot and they had to, as a group... be silent): "Take the pain."

In essence, do people come to the audio forum to learn something new, or do they come to find comfort and stroke themselves heavily? And how do they react to each instance of whatever? Which kind is reading this post?

_________________
(Ken Hotte, of) Teo Audio


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 152 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group