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

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 ...


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).


And now I am a troll in the thread... :)


My contribution is a simple testimony in my last post remark if you can read it... It is a simple fact that answered to the OP of this thread, and to you, about my own experience, without dismissing a priori his claims...And like the OP I think that it is a possible question in an audio thread not something akin to the anti-vaxing movement....Your contribution is a bunch of "rational" arguments to dismiss some very simple facts, or if you prefer illusory subjectivist experience, given by some "subjectivist audiophiles" as you called them , it remind me of some Jonathan Swift distinction in Gulliver... The subjectivist egg army against the objectivist egg league....This distinction between subjectivist and objectivist makes absolutely no sense at all except for those who feel necessary to makes it at all cost...

My best to you...

And I dont think that you are a troll by the way....I dont discuss with or about trolls...You are an intelligent mind and interesting guy, just a bit too extreme or hard in his conclusions and his self imposed mission...I wish you the best anyway...

rockrider

It is so sad that prof does not realize he sees himself as the incontrovertible authority.

It's sad that when faced with an alternative opinion some people can't be bothered to give reasons it's wrong, but will post strawman claim anyway so they can satisfy their desire diss someone without lifting a finger to justify it. 


Of course, you can't actually show anywhere that I"ve claimed to be an "incontrovertible authority" and it's inconvenient for your strawman that my argument to mahgister pointed out that it makes no sense to consider ANYONE an "incontrovertible authority" and why dogmatism of that sort is a bad thing.

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 ;-)