Vacceo
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2022
- Messages
- 2,674
- Likes
- 2,822
I´m on the same boat as you. I do research on humanities (sociology, anthropology, art, history...) and that gives you a fair understanding on why people belive bullshit. The problem humanities have (including music and other forms of artistic sound) is the methodology based on next to impossible replicability combined with a priori statements that imply conflicting visions of reality. That is where propper subjectivity kicks in: it is up to the subject to exert analysis and judgement. However, subjective reviews of audiogear hardly come by as even good subjective analysis. Why so? Because a posteriori arguments still use a point of reference, a stable scale (precise or inprecise, but a scale) to be measured with. The problem, like I said, is the validity of the scale. Where is the scale and what is the logic for "veils", "revealing", "warm"...?How can one be wilfully ignorant and genuine? These days, I have no idea how one can be just simply ignorant. There are so many sources of good information available to these people. They choose not to pursue or act on this information, or actively ignore it, therefore they are all wilfully ignorant. I really can't see it any other way.
Audio is an entirely different element from art, history or anthropology. We deal with an a priori material reality: soundwaves. signals, resistivity, current... All those elements have conventional measures that can be applied to replicable environments and whose effects can be equally determined. Audio does not work on the assumption that it is perhaps ideas or perhaps material conditions what creates it (as it would be changes in human societies): we do know it is material conditions from the devices used. Due to the failability of your perception, concentrate on the device itself and describe it in replicable terms. All the rest could be further analyzed in terms of cultural discourse and I´m sure none of you is particularly interested in me (or anyone) doing audiophool discourse analysis.
The issue here is legitimacy. Would you give the same credit to Lavoisier and the supporters of the Phlogiston? Why can´t a creationist and an evolutionary biologist get along?I don't get the obsession about that guy Danny? Can’t you all just ignore him and appreciate what this site got going in a more positive way?
The constant “us vs you” will probably just divide “the camps” even further, not the other way around. You will hardly get anyone open to your ideas of thinking by calling them a moron (just an example).