Michael wrote,
"Setting the stage is a beautiful thing! As these threads roll on I don't really see the need to make this an us or Geoff thing cause these are two different levels of tweaking. One being a fixed higher mass tweak and the other being a low mass tune. One having one sound and the other being variable, able to produce that same sound or any other sound.
I don't want to discount any one sound including Geoff's if that's a place someone once to go. I do personally move away from the fixed deader sound that Geoff is pointing toward but we need to give him his creative space as anyone elses. I do disagree that someone can or should produce in room acoustical products without actively being an in room listener, but again if someone wants to go that route, there's lots of these roads to travel down.
I don't object to being a speaker "snob", and would have to say thanks. As I am a friendly guy, I think I probably am a bit of a snob when it comes to sound. Not a snob about money and the high end audio climbing up the ladder sense as the reviews have pointed out, but a snob about finding all the variables available in audio both pro and home. In the last few days I have recieved wonderful comments about being willing to come here and back in the audiophile mainstream. I'm glad to be here and hope that more of the on lookers will join in and give their voice to this great hobby of ours. Hats off again to Stereophile for making this possible."
Those are really lovely examples of Strawman arguments, filled with fantasy and fallacy. Nice zingers! Lol. For anyone unfamiliar with Strawman arguments, here's a snippet from Wikipedia:
"A strawman, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of the original topic of argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" implies an adversarial, polemic, or combative debate, and creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue."
BTW I don't mind speaker snobs as long as they're friendly. Thanks a bunch for giving me my creative space. ;-)
It appears you've been honing your argument skills on Zen and the Art of Debunkery as your posts tend to have that certain je ne sais quoi. ;-). Excerpt from Zen and the Art of Debunkery:
"Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in the war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few who are of sufficiently independent of mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides."
You made a statement regarding finding all the variables that is actually quite interesting and important. Can I be so bold as to suggest you might continue looking as it's evident there's quite a few you've overlooked, even in your 30 years of experience.
Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica