He was so narrow minded that if he fell on a pin it would blind him in both eyes. -- Fred Allen
Most of your replies are irrelevant comparisons with politics and kung fu.
HA! That's a good one, Ethan. I got my laugh for the day with that little rejoinder. Admittedly, it was a laugh at your expense - but a good laugh none the less.
But to call me arrogant for having common sense and caring enough about the science of audio to learn how it works is even more arrogant than what you accuse me of!
Let me explain this to you again, Ethan. You are arrogant not for having common sense but for not using what common sense you have. You have misread, misquoted, misunderstood and simply ignored anything that doesn't fit your definition of how things are. That is arrogance! And grand scale stupidity.
You say "evidence proves otherwise" but you have no evidence at all.
Evidence? The evidence is the number of times you've simply ignored the information or wording that might explain something. Even at the end of the above quote you forgot to add that I labelled you "dup vII". That is a very important bit of knowledge for someone so set in their ways. Competition for how deeply you can bury your head is heating up.
You prefer to believe in magic, and you naively give the benefit of the doubt to every crackpot theory out there.
I'd rather spend my time educating people who are actually interested in learning.
Ethan, you have once again totally misunderstood the situation in order to make yourself look good in your own eyes. What are you going to teach anyone, Ethan? That your way is the only way because you have charts and graphs they don't understand? That's pretty much what you've resisted in this thread, Ethan. Like dup you refuse to even consider there can often be more than one way to accomplish a task and beating it into submission is not always the best answer. You can insult me with the tag "naive" and I will turn around and say it is you who have become naive with your little bit of knowledge and your "common sense" graphs and nothing more. When you stop being surprised by what might be you might as well climb in a hole and die.
I have presented evidence here, Ethan, but you've chosen to ignore it and mischaracterize it. You want one way - your way - and no other thought can enter the conversation for fear it might result in a crack in your knowledge which would be unacceptable to you unless you could plot it on a graph.
Almost everything you know, you learned from someone else.
The first time that idea smacked you in the forehead it was courtesy of someone else. The point where you forgot that idea was courtesy of your own arrogance.
This forum should be a place where ideas are exchanged and conversations develop to enlighten all of us. Instead, thanks to a small group of naysayers, this forum is rife with "it can't happen's". "Al Gore" is shouted over and over again. (Hint: that's not a political reference, Ethan.) I am not naive about any of this stuff, despite your pity for me. But I have always approached this hobby as a world of "could be's" rather than "cannot's". I have encouraged anyone who wants to know something to find it for themself and make their own decisions. To me, within the limits of safety and morality, there are no cannot's. I have encouraged everyone who cares to share a morally correct viewpoint to do so and discuss the end results. If that is embracing crackpot ideas, I am guilty of that and proud of it. I don't care to "teach" anyone - and certainly no one on this forum - but I do say to them, "Think, try, listen." In my world once you stop thinking - which means you've stopped listening to others because they are the real teachers- you've stopped learning. You, on the otherhand, Ethan, want to show them a graph and tell them what they will hear. Brilliant methodology! With your approach they can know nothing more than you already know and they will probably forget most of that when they no longer need it.
I'm always amused by those people who use a reference when it suits them and then denouce the same reference when it does not. I'm even more amused when the reference is misquoted. At the moment, Ethan, you are running neck and neck with dup in that department.
You use JA as your compatriot when you wish to discuss waterfall plots. Yet you denounce him when he states his amazement at the improvements he observed when the Mpingo discs were in place. You ignore him when he says, "But while I can think of no mechanism by which the Mpingo discs can work their magic, that doesn't mean any effect must be non-existent. I am not so arrogant as to suppose that the only things that can happen are those that I can imagine. (Those who declare that, unless they can think of a mechanism for something happening, it can't happen, are presuming knowledge of all that was known, is known, and is still to be known. That they actually possess such knowledge seems unlikely.)"
You state flatly, "When they duck the issue with 'science doesn't know how to measure what I'm sure I can hear' they have lost all hope of convincing me", and then make the most sweeping statement of all saying everyone believing something they cannot explain is simply delusional. And you don't see the contradiction in your own words, Ethan?
We who listen are exactly who Heyser was discussing when he said, ""I no longer regard as fruitcakes people who say they can hear something and I can't measure it