"Audio Without Numbers" by Herb Reichert

[crenca]

11 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I haven't seen any evidence that ML has banned people that for an opposing viewpoint. I have seen evidence that he's banned people for being rude & disrespectful.

 

Where did you get this cherry-picked evidence from? Many if not most of the regulars around here on the objectivist side have been banned by ML for respectfully disagreeing with him...

[Albrecht]

5 minutes ago, Nordkapp said:

ML is pompous. Gotta be one of the worst audio snobs going imo. Hate to say such things but he makes no apologies.

I don't disagree. But because he is pompous does not mean that he bans people for having an opposing viewpoint.

[Nordkapp]

30 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I don't disagree. But because he is pompous does not mean that he bans people for having an opposing viewpoint.

Actually I did not know he bans people...haha. Not surprised. Oh well. We all have our views. It's cool. Whatever. It's frikin stereo equipment.....

[Albrecht]

5 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Where did you get this cherry-picked evidence from? Many if not most of the regulars around here on the objectivist side have been banned by ML for respectfully disagreeing with him...

""Where did you get this cherry-picked evidence from?"

 

I don't think that you read what I wrote. I said that i haven't seen any evidence that people have been banned for disagreeing. It doesn't mean that people haven't been banned. It doesn't mean that people could've have even been banned for disagreeing, - I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN ANY....

If you'd care to produce some, - it might be a learning moment for me. (There are Audiostream articles & comments on them that I have not seen; i promise).

[crenca]

1 minute ago, Albrecht said:

""Where did you get this cherry-picked evidence from?"

 

I don't think that you read what I wrote. I said that i haven't seen any evidence that people have been banned for disagreeing. It doesn't mean that people haven't been banned. It doesn't mean that people could've have even been banned for disagreeing, - I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN ANY....

If you'd care to produce some, - it might be a learning moment for me. (There are Audiostream articles & comments on them that I have not seen; i promise).

 

Just going from memory here, I think on a thread that was specifically about ML being banned here at CA, a number of folks told their stories so to speak... I would repeat my own but frankly I'm just sort of bored of ML and don't feel like typing it out again ?

[tmtomh]

I don't mind Reichert's position per se. 

 

But this isn't an article or an argument; it's a tantrum.  At the end he proposes that left-brain Apollonians and right-brain Dionysians walk together. All well and good, except he's just spent the entire piece caricaturing and character-assassinating left-brained Apollonians. Rhetorically, it's abusive behavior: beat the living tar out of them and then offer your hand in partnership.

 

Amid all the rigged adjectives and straw-man argumentation, there is one telling moment. He says that he has biases, but "tries to listen around" them.

 

To me this is telling because it belies the weakness of his argument. If he really believed in the ideas he professed in the piece, he'd say that bias is just a negative word for the qualitative listening he does, that his so-called "bias" is what he, and every other listener, brings to the table.

 

But evidently he lacks the courage of his convictions, which is why it's a tantrum: he's pure and forceful when attacking others, but he cops out when articulating his own position.

 

It's just lame.

[Ralf11]

35 minutes ago, Nordkapp said:

Actually I did not know he bans people...haha. Not surprised. Oh well. We all have our views. It's cool. Whatever. It's frikin stereo equipment.....

 

no, for ML it is a livelihood (of sorts)

 

he makes money by having companies place ads on his pontification site 

[Ron Scubadiver]

1 hour ago, Archimago said:

"Their minds are not open to any forms of anecdotal evidence or unbiased collection of raw data."

Again, what is this about? Other than Hydrogen Audio with their TOS, I don't think anyone here demands formal A/B testing be done. Informal anecdotal opinions are not necessarily automatically dismissed, but I think most would encourage the listener to go further using tools (whether ABX or other form of blind testing) to control for biases. This is simply reasonable especially when the opinion is one of "obvious" audible differences heard.

 

The thing is that I would love to debate an article like this with these folks on AudioStream... But they banned me for basically expressing a philosophically different opinion years ago similar to statements above. I certainly do not think I came across as rude nor did I use any inappropriate language, just pointing out inconsistencies and questionable "faith based" commentary as I recall being promoted by Mr. Lavorgna. Indeed, "So why then can't objectivists and subjectivists respect each other?"

The Hydrogen Audio TOS is not evenly enforced and is also imposed on observations that indicate a malfunctioning piece of gear.  They also reject measurements, which are objective for the rest of us.

 

I managed to get banned from the two largest photo forums on the net for doing some controversial things.  Generally, not following the crowd or being able to think for yourself is grounds for being banned.

 

[Archimago]

49 minutes ago, Albrecht said:

I don't disagree. But because he is pompous does not mean that he bans people for having an opposing viewpoint.

 

Yes. It happens. Frequently I think given some comments I've heard through PM over the years.

 

He seems to have very thin skin when it comes to disagreement... A shame because reasonable discussion would be fun and it doesn't have to end up being egotistical sword battles.

 

Hard to find evidence when posts themselves get erased.

[beetlemania]

11 minutes ago, Ron Scubadiver said:

The Hydrogen Audio TOS is not evenly enforced

 

 

Have things changed? I was banned for subjective opinions re: SQ

[Ralf11]

I'm curious - what are the two largest photo forums on the net ??

[Allan F]

If you delete the caustic rhetoric from "Self-proclaimed audio objectivists, like those that troll audio forums, are not scientists, or audio professionals" to "Amateur objectivists can't imagine that numbers and counting are little more than cultural fabrications with a stronger history in banking than science", I don't have a problem with the piece and actually agree with a lot of what he has to say.

 

However, the above referenced attack is unfair and completely uncalled for. IMO, it only serves to severely erode the credibility of what follows to any reader unfamiliar with the issues under discussion, and is unnecessarily inflammatory to many who are. The expression, "hoisted with his own petard", comes to mind. It's sad, really.

 

 

[Ralf11]

no, quantification is crucial in science

 

and... counting is hardly a cultural fabrication - many animals can count, including some birds

[Nordkapp]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

 

no, for ML it is a livelihood (of sorts)

 

he makes money by having companies place ads on his pontification site 

Well in that case shame on him. That young man needs to learn to be kind and respectful........

[adamdea]

1 hour ago, Allan F said:

If you delete the caustic rhetoric from "Self-proclaimed audio objectivists, like those that troll audio forums, are not scientists, or audio professionals" to "Amateur objectivists can't imagine that numbers and counting are little more than cultural fabrications with a stronger history in banking than science", 

 

 

Then you would be replacing something crude and crassly stupid with some vain cultural studies trumpery.

[Ron Scubadiver]

2 hours ago, beetlemania said:

 

Have things changed? I was banned for subjective opinions re: SQ

Nothing has changed and that will get you banned, but some members are obviously getting away with a lot and the guy who runs the forum breaks his own rules whenever he feels like it.

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

no, quantification is crucial in science

 

and... counting is hardly a cultural fabrication - many animals can count, including some birds

Are you referring to the Counting Crows?  They have some pretty good albums out too. 

 

See they can count at least to one. 

 

 

 

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

I'm curious - what are the two largest photo forums on the net ??

Just a guess.  dpreview and Snapchat.  

[sandyk]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

no, for ML it is a livelihood (of sorts)

 

he makes money by having companies place ads on his pontification site 

 

 Sounds a little bit like C.A. ?

 

[Ralf11]

No, because Chris uses crowd sourcing of engineers and others, ML doesn't really do that.

[Ralf11]

Jackdaws, crows, and parrots can count to about 6

 

note also the specialty neurons paper (no, PNAS is not peer reviewed - it is a selective club tho...)

 

Pepperberg, I.M. (1999) The Alex studies: Cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey Parrots.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Helen M. D. & Andreas N. (2015) Neurons selective to the number of visual items in the corvid songbird endbrain. PNAS  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1504245112

 

[mrvco]

I don't know what makes me more nuts, the pretentious absolutism of the pure objectivists or the pretentious absolutism of the pure subjectivists 

[esldude]

44 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

Jackdaws, crows, and parrots can count to about 6

 

note also the specialty neurons paper (no, PNAS is not peer reviewed - it is a selective club tho...)

 

Pepperberg, I.M. (1999) The Alex studies: Cognitive and communicative abilities of Grey Parrots.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Helen M. D. & Andreas N. (2015) Neurons selective to the number of visual items in the corvid songbird endbrain. PNAS  DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1504245112

 

I was pulling your leg.  I've read the neuron paper though not my field of expertise.  

 

Now the Pepperberg paper........when I saw The Alex Studies I thought for a split second it had something to do with SandyK.

 

Crows aren't just counters they are smart too.  

[Ralf11]

1 hour ago, esldude said:

I was pulling your leg.  I've read the neuron paper though not my field of expertise.  

 

Now the Pepperberg paper........when I saw The Alex Studies I thought for a split second it had something to do with SandyK.

 

Crows aren't just counters they are smart too.  

 

Irene Pepperberg has been heavily criticized for poor methodology.  I'm not really in that particular segment of a field so don't know if itis valid.  The GTOs (Girls Together Outrageously) aka female mafia of bird science seem to think it was just a case of old men hatin' on a rising woman star scientist.  Take half of each viewpoint...

 

BTW, birds have very different brain organization than mammals... in mammals the neostriatum is a thin protective membrane, but in birds it is very elaborate, perhaps like a cortex...

 

Corvids (crows, jays, etc.) and parrots are the geniuses of the avian world.

[Indydan]

In the "Look who's talking" category, ML wrote this reply to tmtomh in the comments section:

 

"You are walking a fine line by using words like "pathetic" and "courage...", between commentary and what I consider abusive language.

While we welcome commentary, we can all live without abusive language, here."

 

This comment from the guy who told Ralf here on CA to go F*** his mother. Unbelievable...