How many do you know that repeatedly state that people with views they dislike claim 'everything sounds the same'. Are these people simply dishonest or are their mental abilities sufficiently impaired they consider it true? Or perhaps something else?
Blind Test Shock - Everyting sounds the same.
- Thread starter Sloop John B
- Start date
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Fair enough. But I hope you take the point, nevertheless.
In case you don't, I'm saying that nobody seriously argues that 'everything matters' just as nobody seriously suggests that 'everything sounds the same'. Applying these labels to your opponent is just unhelpful and likely to derail the thread.
Julf
Facts are our friends
I disagree with your analogy. A more appropriate one would be someone, in a pub conversation about football, saying "George Best was the greatest British footballer, and I think it was because he was a teetotaller", someone else responding "No, he was Irish, and struggled with alcoholism", and getting the response "Oh yeah? What do you know, have you ever seen him play?".
Subjective opinions is one thing, (technical) facts another, and far too many people get those two mixed up. If you say "I prefer speaker X over speaker Y", that is your personal opinion that can not be challenged. If you say "Speaker X is better than speaker Y because it has silver cables inside, and they reduce distortion", that is a verifiable/falsifiable claim that can and should be challenged.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
Hmm. Was Best British or Irish? He would almost certainly have described himself as British, as he was from a Protestant family; had his family been Catholic, he would probably have described himself as Irish. (This is a far more interesting subject than whether 'everything sounds the same'.)
Whaleblue
Southbound
This is a point well made, and it would be nice if observed by all.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
the analogy goes more to illustrate the rudeness of the interruption, and the effect on the conversation. You're doing that thing of deconstructing the analogy rather than taking its message, again.
As to your second point, I don't disagree with your premise, but those are not the sort of challenges I'm objecting to. The ones I find irritating and unhelpful are the ones I mentioned, which tend to have the zeal of the recently converted about them. Like being lectured on smoking by a recently reformed ex-smoker.
Whaleblue
Southbound
Then perhaps the better analogy is two people discussing the fact that one has an illness, with the other telling him he should be using healing crystals (expensive, but worth it), and the interrupter suggesting this is bunk and perhaps consulting a qualified doctor would be a better course of action.
We see it so often where folk have something in their system they don't like, such as bass boom. Suggesting cable switching rather than room placement/treatment or DSP is the equivalent to the above.
In both cases the sufferer is likely to get a cure if they listen to the chap doing the interrupting.
Of course, the method and style of interruption can vary wildly.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
No, your analogy is about the validity of the opinion, mine is about the negative effect of the interruption.
But while we're on your subject, I happen to think much DSP interferes with the musical enjoyment so throws the baby out with the bath water. So, borrowing your analogy, it is like advising somebody with an infected limb to have it amputated rather than use healing crystals.
But while we're on your subject, I happen to think much DSP interferes with the musical enjoyment so throws the baby out with the bath water. So, borrowing your analogy, it is like advising somebody with an infected limb to have it amputated rather than use healing crystals.
Julf
Facts are our friends
I agree that actual facts have a nasty way of interrupting and spoiling a nice, social exchange of anecdotes.
I think I am hearing an analogy stretch and snap...
Whaleblue
Southbound
Fair enough.
The point I'm making is that the interruptions are often made with the best of intentions. Not always, I accept, but as Julf seems to be the centre of much of this particular debate I think it's a fair point to draw out.
To that end we're back to your point about labels, with which I agree, as if applied injudiciously threatens to throw out the helpful factual baby with the point scoring bath water.
P.S. I have my own concerns about DSP, so ignore that and everyone can stay fully limbed.
MVV
pfm Member
This thread illustrates the bit I least like about pfm; mind sets that see discussion as "debate" and participants as "opponents"
Sometimes two of these knights in shining armour take the stage,for pages on end presumably assuming the rest of us are following in rapt attention when really we have gone long ago, and couldn't care less anyhow.
Sometimes two of these knights in shining armour take the stage,for pages on end presumably assuming the rest of us are following in rapt attention when really we have gone long ago, and couldn't care less anyhow.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
like this, perhaps?
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Yes it is.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
But no it isn't
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Consistency, like neutrality, is overrated...