"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ps.com...
Jim said:
For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for
detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what
the
reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in
response
all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but
with
little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the
reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up"
and "prove them wrong".

He then went on to say:
It would be nice if people who designed/made/sold equipment were
willing to
help. But I appreciate that you can't be bothered.

Now, it should be obvious to anyone with the slightest emotional
intelligence would see that Jim is playing the game "I'm just a good
guy asking for proof" and then turning round and attacking anyone who
doesn't give it to him. This sort of hypocrisy has been going on for
decades. As I said before several times, it won't stop because Jim
doesn't understand it and has no intention of stopping it. Maenwhile it
just annoys people.

I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be
frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue for
using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide something
tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to cause some level of
frustration in those who have knowledge anad experience, and are use to
working with facts.

"APR" wrote in message
...

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
ps.com...
Jim said:
For some years (decades in fact) I have persistently kept asking for
detailed evidence on various audio matters. This is to help decide what
the
reality of these situations might be. Alas, all too often I get in
response
all kinds of reactions and re-statements of opinions/conclusions, but
with
little in the way of detailed assessable evidence. All too often the
reaction seems to be defensive as if I am trying to "trip people up"
and "prove them wrong".

He then went on to say:
It would be nice if people who designed/made/sold equipment were
willing to
help. But I appreciate that you can't be bothered.

Now, it should be obvious to anyone with the slightest emotional
intelligence would see that Jim is playing the game "I'm just a good
guy asking for proof" and then turning round and attacking anyone who
doesn't give it to him. This sort of hypocrisy has been going on for
decades. As I said before several times, it won't stop because Jim
doesn't understand it and has no intention of stopping it. Maenwhile it
just annoys people.

I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be
frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue for
using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide something
tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to cause some level
of frustration in those who have knowledge anad experience, and are use to
working with facts.


Given that this group is not entirely made up from 'industry pros' (real or
imagined) or 'audio/electronics engineers' (?), there will be instances
where people cannot easily argue their case with *tangibles* and/or supply
meaningful research data. It is up to the 'technical types' here to find out
what point such a person is making without expecting said 'tangibles', if
they wish to take issue with such points without the frustration you
mention.

Otherwise the 'because I say so' card is the only one left to play....

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"APR" wrote in message
...


I think you may be missinterpreting Jim's intentions here. What may be
frustrating Jim is that people propose scenarios that they will argue
for using intangibles, and will not make any attempt to provide
something tangible to support their arguements. This does tend to
cause some level of frustration in those who have knowledge anad
experience, and are use to working with facts.


Given that this group is not entirely made up from 'industry pros' (real
or imagined) or 'audio/electronics engineers' (?), there will be
instances where people cannot easily argue their case with *tangibles*
and/or supply meaningful research data. It is up to the 'technical
types' here to find out what point such a person is making without
expecting said 'tangibles', if they wish to take issue with such points
without the frustration you mention.

The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable
evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say.
This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of having
no assessable information.

Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing to
give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide
if the claim is worth taking seriously or not.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:


Given that this group is not entirely made up from 'industry pros' (real
or imagined) or 'audio/electronics engineers' (?), there will be
instances where people cannot easily argue their case with *tangibles*
and/or supply meaningful research data. It is up to the 'technical
types' here to find out what point such a person is making without
expecting said 'tangibles', if they wish to take issue with such points
without the frustration you mention.

The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no assessable
evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what they say.
This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may be, but of
having
no assessable information.


Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the
requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many
quarters. I know from offlist conversations in the past that a number of
posters gave up here because they didn't feel free to comment on anything
much without being 'put right' all the time or being pulled up for the
wording &c. of their posts.

The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information - much
of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or exaggerated,
either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep communications open,
otherwise that point is lost. Topics in this group are 'cyclic' - perhaps it
isn't always possible or even necessary to get a clear understanding by all
parties, first time round...??



Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing to
give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to decide
if the claim is worth taking seriously or not.


Quite. Some will be, other will not be - goes with the territory...

In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no
assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what
they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may
be, but of having no assessable information.


Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the
requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many
quarters.

The "requirements" (i.e. test arrangements, or whatever) would depend
entirly on what *idea* was being tested. They could be simple or complex,
depending entirely on the case. However if you look back at this issue, you
will find that my main concern tends to be with 'reviews' in professional
magazines where I would expect those involved to be willing to accept that
they may have responsibilities to the readers (who indirectly pay them). In
effect it is their *profession* to try and get this right, not simply a
hobby interest. It seems reasonable to me to expect them to go to lengths
which would not be appropriate for most people who simply want to sit down
and enjoy the music.

The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information -
much of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or
exaggerated, either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep
communications open, otherwise that point is lost.

The problem is that a statement may not be 'information' at all if we have
no way to tell what it actually means. Again, this depends entirely on the
specific case.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no
assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what
they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may
be, but of having no assessable information.


Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the
requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many
quarters.

The "requirements" (i.e. test arrangements, or whatever) would depend
entirly on what *idea* was being tested. They could be simple or complex,
depending entirely on the case. However if you look back at this issue,
you
will find that my main concern tends to be with 'reviews' in professional
magazines where I would expect those involved to be willing to accept that
they may have responsibilities to the readers (who indirectly pay them).
In
effect it is their *profession* to try and get this right, not simply a
hobby interest. It seems reasonable to me to expect them to go to lengths
which would not be appropriate for most people who simply want to sit down
and enjoy the music.


These posts are always difficult to reply to because, due to the delays
involved, the 'moment' has very often passed for me and I have no
inclination to go ploughing back through the threads to check various
points.

Thus, taking the above in isolation, I can only say I have no argument with
your opinion of 'magazine reviewers' generally but would only say that
magazine reviews are very likely to fall short of the expectations of people
who are more 'technically' capable but, presumably, do at least serve the
purpose of keep less 'technically capable' readers entertained and sales of
the magazines up?

No-one in his right mind swallows the whole thing but many find something of
interest and, oddly enough, I suspect all of us like to see a bit of kit we
have already bought/own get a thumbs up (OK, meaningless in many instances)
from some wattock, whether we rate them or not..??



The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information -
much of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or
exaggerated, either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep
communications open, otherwise that point is lost.

The problem is that a statement may not be 'information' at all if we have
no way to tell what it actually means. Again, this depends entirely on the
specific case.


Much of what we read is not *information* in the strictest sense, but I
still say it's as much the responsibility of the informee to ensure he
understands what the informer is trying to say when statements are made in a
general 'conversation', as in this group. Demanding certain 'standards be
met' is only another way of driving off people who share some interest in
the hobby, albeit it at a less technical level, IMO....

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


The problem is that if someone makes a claim but provides no
assessable evidence or details, then may be impossible to assess what
they say. This isn't a matter of how technically capable anyone may
be, but of having no assessable information.


Yes I understand that, but what I'm concerned about is that if the
requirements are forever too exacting they will stifle comment from many
quarters.

The "requirements" (i.e. test arrangements, or whatever) would depend
entirly on what *idea* was being tested. They could be simple or complex,
depending entirely on the case. However if you look back at this issue, you
will find that my main concern tends to be with 'reviews' in professional
magazines where I would expect those involved to be willing to accept that
they may have responsibilities to the readers (who indirectly pay them). In
effect it is their *profession* to try and get this right, not simply a
hobby interest. It seems reasonable to me to expect them to go to lengths
which would not be appropriate for most people who simply want to sit down
and enjoy the music.

The point of these groups is debate and the exchange of information -
much of the information/comment offered here will be incorrect or
exaggerated, either way it's up to the skill of the debaters to keep
communications open, otherwise that point is lost.


They are either lying or they are getting it right. I have only caught
one reviewer lying n an article but he was pimping DBTs at the time.
That is a bit ironic don't you think?



The problem is that a statement may not be 'information' at all if we have
no way to tell what it actually means. Again, this depends entirely on the
specific case.
..

I'm not buying your semantical argument. A subjective review is
information whether you like it or not the reader is *informed* on the
reviewers subjective impressions.


Scott

Of course, it is up to the person making the claims if they are willing
to
give any evidence/details when asked. Just as it is up to others to
decide
if the claim is worth taking seriously or not. Jim

I really think you are in complete denial over all this, Jim. Here,
once again are your exact words. Again the same thing. You ask for (I
used the word demand previously, but ask is OK) evidence BEYOND what is
provided. What is usually provided (if we ignore deliberate hype) is
the usual comparative listening results, which some, though not all,
have gone to great pains to make as objective as possible. Best of a
bad job, maybe, but that's overwhelmingly how the industry works -
comparative listening. Since this is how information about products is
usually assessed, then you - as you have said yourself - are asking for
more than the majority of people are able or willing to provide, thus
putting them potentially into a zone of discomfort. Now I have no
problem with this if, as I have said many times, your attitude is "If
you can't provide any details, then fine - I was just asking". But your
attitude is NOT this. What you then do is invoke "others" (your exact
word above, so let's not have any stuff about being misrepresented) and
collectively accuse the person of communicating in a way that is not
"worth taking seriously" (your exact words). If you don't think that
telling people they're not worth taking seriously is being dismissive,
then I come back to saying you're in denial. And I say again, you won't
change because you don't see this and you will systematically continue
as you have done, despite the fact that obviously there are people who
object to not being taken seriously when what they are doing is
genuinely and in good faith providing the sort of comparative listening
data that virtually everybody uses as a lingua franca in the business.

"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...

If you don't think that
telling people they're not worth taking seriously is being dismissive,
then I come back to saying you're in denial. And I say again, you won't
change because you don't see this and you will systematically continue
as you have done, despite the fact that obviously there are people who
object to not being taken seriously when what they are doing is
genuinely and in good faith providing the sort of comparative listening
data that virtually everybody uses as a lingua franca in the business.

Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what they
are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference with
respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you seriously**
or **I cannot take that seriously**

Is Jim not taking people seriously or is he not prepared to take what
they
are presenting seriously if they cannot back it up. Big difference with

respect to the intention on Jim's part, ie, **I cannot take you
seriously**
or **I cannot take that seriously**

I thought of exactly that theoretical distinction and pondered it for a
while, but in practice I don't think it makes much difference. "What
you say isn't worth taking seriously" is surely going to be taken as a
personal comment when the poster was clearly speaking with serious
intent.

Let's be a bit more obvious - let's turn it round then. Let me say to
Jim
"Alas, Jim, once again you continue to misunderstand me, and I leave it
to others to decide whether your persistent requests for scientific
evidence - where it is inappropriate or cannot be provided - are worth
taking seriously or not"

How does this sound to you -
a) dismissive
b) friendly